Re: 2.0.4 -> 3.0.12 -> 4.0.1

Hi Bob



On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 17:24, Bob Hood <[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually, I found it far easier to just patch SWIG instead of Python:
>
> --- M:/swig-3.0.12/Lib/python/pyrun.swg    Tue Apr 21 10:18:48 2020
> +++ M:/swig-3.0.12/Lib/python/pyrun_patched.swg    Tue Apr 21 10:11:07 2020
> @@ -1362,7 +1362,7 @@
>      }
>    } else {
>  #if PY_VERSION_HEX >= 0x03000000
> -    inst = ((PyTypeObject*) data->newargs)->tp_new((PyTypeObject*)
> data->newargs, Py_None, Py_None);
> +    inst = ((PyTypeObject*) data->newargs)->tp_new((PyTypeObject*)
> data->newargs, PyTuple_New(0), Py_None);
>
> This issue was fixed 18 months ago for swig-4.0.0.


> Enter SWIG 4.0.1.  I decided to try it as a drop-in replacement for
> 3.0.12.  Unfortunately, the import module that it creates does not get the
> formatting correct, leaving indentation errors *all over the module*:
>
>
>
>
>
> So, of course, I cannot even run the system to see if SWIG v4 solves the
> *original* issue found in SWIG v3.
>
> SWIG 4.0.1 does not have any indentation problems that have been reported
and they aren't in the extensive test-suite we have. Where is the comment
code with the indentations coming from? Is it not your own code? Please
provide a small example of the indentation problem and I'll take a look.

There are various bugs fixed in swig-4.0 for python > 3.5, so if you are
using python 3.8, I really would encourage moving to swig-4.0 once we've
sorted the indentation problem out.

William

_______________________________________________
Swig-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swig-user