At 05:22 AM 10/9/2007, David Cournapeau wrote: >Could not this be because you compiled the posh sources with a >compiler/runtime which is different than the other extensions and python >interpreter ?
It definitely was - since my 2.4 wanted the free 7.1 compiler, I (and anyone else who didn't download it in time) are now seemingly SOL since it is no longer available. I saw much discussion of this as well, but even 2.5 is now "fixed" on 7.1 and reports of compiling distutil modules with the new MS SDK and having them work at all with 2.4 were very mixed. I also tried GCC and had a litany of other errors with the posh. >Sebastian Haase added: >I was in fact experimenting with this. The solution seemed to lie in >"simple" memmap as it is implemented in Windows: <snip> I had just found and started to write some tests with that MS function. If I can truly write to the array in one process and instantly read it in the other I'll be happy. Did you find that locks or semaphores were needed? >(( I have to mention, that I could crash a process while testing this ... )) That was one of my first results! I also found that using ctypes to create arrays from the other process's address and laying a numpy array on top was prone to that in experimentation. But I had the same issue as Mark Heslep http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/ctypes-users/3192422 of creating a numpy array from a raw address (not a c_array). Thanks, Ray Schumacher _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion