In article <CAPZV6o_HRmkU_=1mzpjdzjgzobtwbznev-rjtqbp8p-6tu+...@mail.gmail.com>, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2013/4/18 Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com>: > > libffi has bugs sometimes (like this > > http://bugs.python.org/issue17580). Now this is a thing that upstream > > fixes really quickly, but tracking down issues on bugs.python.org is > > annoying (they never get commited as quickly as the upstream). is > > there a good reason why cpython has it's own copy of libffi? I > > understand historical reasons, but PyPy gets along relying on the > > system library, so maybe we can kill the inclusion. > > IIRC, it had (has?) some custom windows patches, which no one knows > whether they're relevant or not.
The cpython copy also has custom OS X patches. I've never looked at them so I don't have a feel for how much work would be involved in migrating to current upstream. If it's just a matter of supporting universal builds, it could be done with some Makefile hacking to do a lipo dance. Ronald, any additional thoughts? http://bugs.python.org/issue15194 Currently, for the OS X installer builds, we build a number of third-party libs that are either missing from OS X (like lzma) or are too out-of-date on the oldest systems we support. It would be useful to generalize the third-party lib support and move it out of the installer build process so that all builds could take advantage of the libs if needed. libffi could be added to those. Of course, that wouldn't help for Windows builds. -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
