On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:48 AM, lars van Gemerden <[email protected]> wrote: > However i noticed that Shiboken.ObjectType (type(QtCore.QObject) in PySide) > does not behave like a normal metaclass:
Hi Lars, the heads up is appreciated as always. When we suspect that something is broken with Stackless Python, the first thing to do is test how it works under vanilla Python. I suspect that this problem would happen under vanilla Python, and the existing problems are likely to be general enough that even if it is Stackless-specific, this would possibly be related. > Fault Module Name: StackHash_0a9e > > I dont know if this helps in any way, but since i noticed StackHash_0a9e in > the error, i thought i'd report. This is a false positive. In reality unless it says Stackless, nothing mentioning the stack will have anything to do with Stackless Python. Doesn't hurt to mention it to find that out of course. > PS: I've given up on building stackless python myself, i really dont have > sufficient knowledge do do it in limited time. Building Stackless should be exactly like building vanilla Python. There are two main cases where someone would have problems. The first is where they are either using an unsupported architecture (in which case it won't compile, or it should compile exactly into the same version of vanilla Python - I forget which). The second is where they want to install it and there's some confusion about installing it alongside a preinstalled version of vanilla Python). Linux or Windows/mingw: 1) Get Python source. 2) ./configure 3) make 4) ./python 5) ./python Stackless/unittest/run_all.py (think that's the filename). Windows (Visual Studio): 1) Get source. 2) Open the solution file in PCbuild. 3) Compile. 4) Maybe recompile again. 5) Find you need the platform SDK or some other thing. 6) Go to 3) 7) Consider installing the dependencies for optional modules like ssl, if so, do so and go to 3) 8) PCBuild/python.exe Stackless/unittest/run_all.py Besides the last step for each, compiling Stackless is identical in tedium and potential problems (as far as I recall) for both. Cheers, Richard. _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
