mirror of
https://github.com/pybind/pybind11.git
synced 2024-11-14 09:34:46 +00:00
b82c0f0a2d
This exposed a few underlying issues: 1. is_pod_struct was too strict to allow this. I've relaxed it to require only trivially copyable and standard layout, rather than POD (which additionally requires a trivial constructor, which std::complex violates). 2. format_descriptor<std::complex<T>>::format() returned numpy format strings instead of PEP3118 format strings, but register_dtype feeds format codes of its fields to _dtype_from_pep3118. I've changed it to return PEP3118 format codes. format_descriptor is a public type, so this may be considered an incompatible change. 3. register_structured_dtype tried to be smart about whether to mark fields as unaligned (with ^). However, it's examining the C++ alignment, rather than what numpy (or possibly PEP3118) thinks the alignment should be. For complex values those are different. I've made it mark all fields as ^ unconditionally, which should always be safe even if they are aligned, because we explicitly mark the padding. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| _static | ||
| advanced | ||
| basics.rst | ||
| benchmark.py | ||
| benchmark.rst | ||
| changelog.rst | ||
| classes.rst | ||
| compiling.rst | ||
| conf.py | ||
| Doxyfile | ||
| faq.rst | ||
| index.rst | ||
| intro.rst | ||
| limitations.rst | ||
| Makefile | ||
| pybind11_vs_boost_python1.png | ||
| pybind11_vs_boost_python1.svg | ||
| pybind11_vs_boost_python2.png | ||
| pybind11_vs_boost_python2.svg | ||
| pybind11-logo.png | ||
| reference.rst | ||
| release.rst | ||
| requirements.txt | ||
