Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support LowLevelCallable #2999

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Support LowLevelCallable #2999

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

sklam
Copy link
Member

@sklam sklam commented May 29, 2018

Fix #2995

  • add ctypes lowlevelcallable
  • add cffi lowlevelcallable
  • support .user_data

Typing for scipy specific features
"""
from numba import types

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This creates an import cycle, which appears to be handled properly in Python 3, but not Python 2.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 30, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #2999 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 89.79%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2999      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.73%   85.74%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         327      331       +4     
  Lines       68535    68630      +95     
  Branches     7755     7759       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits        58760    58845      +85     
- Misses       8535     8544       +9     
- Partials     1240     1241       +1

and fixes the ctypes test expected value.
@pv
Copy link

pv commented Jul 30, 2018

xref #2995 (comment)

@dhirschfeld
Copy link
Contributor

I'm very keen on this functionality and it seems like it's very nearly there so I'm curious if it will make the cutoff for 0.40.0?

@dhirschfeld
Copy link
Contributor

Ping! It seems like this PR is most of the way there. Is there anything in particular holding it up?

I'm hopeful that it will resolve #2578 as well.

@pv
Copy link

pv commented Nov 7, 2018

My comment at #2995 (comment) is not addressed so far at least.

@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request is marked as stale as it has had no activity in the past 3 months. Please respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this. Many thanks!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Marker label for stale issues. label May 31, 2023
@jfbourdon
Copy link

It would be sad to see this being closed... but well, as a simple occasional user I'm really not the one who can help and I won't pretend understanding a single line of code behind this PR!

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale Marker label for stale issues. label Jun 7, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 6, 2023

This pull request is marked as stale as it has had no activity in the past 3 months. Please respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this. Many thanks!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Marker label for stale issues. label Sep 6, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the abandoned - stale PRs automatically closed due to stale status label Sep 13, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Sep 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
2 - In Progress abandoned - stale PRs automatically closed due to stale status stale Marker label for stale issues.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support passing in LowLevelCallable as argument to jitted function
7 participants