Evan, Thanks for the info. I used universal, purely as a descriptor of the functionality I was hoping for. I will have to experiment with installing GDAL in separate locations to see if I can get both installations to get along.
Thanks! Jay On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Even Rouault <[email protected] > wrote: > > A few questions: > > Can a 64-bit installation of gdal support the 32-bit python bindings, ie > is > > a universal binary buildable? > > Not sure what you mean by "universal binary" (this is a OSX concept, but > I'm > not aware it exists for Windows), but the most general answer is : No > > The python bindings contain DLL, that must have the same bit size as the > GDAL > core DLL. > > A 64bit DLL cannot link with a 32bit DLL, and vice versa. > > > Is it possible to support both 32 and 63 bit installations of the python > > bindings? > > If you install them in separate locations, yes > > > Does this require both a 32-bit and a 64-bit installation of the > > gdal core package? > > Yes, according to above > > > If it is possible to support both, what order do I need to append my path > > in? Currently I have the gdal install directory first to avoid dll > loading > > issues (from an earlier mail). > > I would believe that you can put the paths to the 32bit and 64bit binaries > and > that the windows loader will select the right version, but I'm not sure at > all. That might require confirmation by experimenting > > > > > Thanks, > > Jay >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
