Hide Forgot
Description of problem: I am not sure where to place this, so feel free to reassign. Consider the following python session: <<---snip--->> >>> import libxml2 >>> import urllib2 >>> f = urllib2.urlopen("http://ryoko.camperquake.de") >>> s = f.read() >>> f.close() >>> d = libxml2.parseDoc(s) >>> d <xmlDoc (None) object at 0x-48304c34> <<---snip--->> As can be seen, python thinks that the object is located at a negative memory address, which is kind of strange. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): python-2.4.3-11.FC6 libxml2-python-2.6.26-2 How reproducible: Sometimes, not all objects show this behaviour Steps to Reproduce: 1. As seen above 2. 3. Actual results: Negative memory addresses show up sometimes Expected results: Non-negative addresses would be nice :) Additional info:
This has been discussed extensively on the python-dev mailing list. http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051562.html http://codespeak.net/pipermail/pypy-dev/2004q4/001629.html To summarize, one should not assume id() returns a short int, so using "%x" is the wrong way to format the pointer's address. Reassigning the bug to libxml2, since it doesn't look like the upstream developers are willing to change id() in python 2.4.
Bahh ... %X generating a negative string, you have to be a python maintainer to consider this sane, sigh ... Daniel
Created attachment 143643 [details] patch to make sure id() extraction is always positive