On 22 Nov 2013 10:58, "Steve Dower" <steve.do...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Nick Coghlan wrote: > > For 2.7.7, I think some combination of the two following ideas would be worth > > pursuing: > > - a C runtime independent API flag (set by default on Windows when building with > > a compiler other than VS2008). This would largely be a backport of some of the > > stable ABI work from Python 3. > > - getting Windows closer to the current Mac OS X situation by ensuring that the > > C runtime used directly affects the ABI flags and shared library names. PyPI > > would apply the Mac OS X guideline where extensions are expected to be > > compatible with the python.org binaries. > > I don't really think either of these are necessary. With some changes to Python's headers and some extra exports, it should be possible to future-proof Python 2.7.7 against any new compilers, at least on Windows. > > What I have in mind is basically detecting the MSVC version in the headers (there are preprocessor variables for this) and, if it isn't VC9, substituting a different function for those that require FILE*. This function/macro could call _get_osfhandle() and pass it to an API (built into python27.dll) that calls _open_osfhandle() and forwards it to the usual API. > > This should let any compiler be used for building extensions or hosting python27.dll without affecting existing code or requiring changes to the packages. > > > This would be the biggest change pushed through under the "make builds work" > > policy for the extended 2.7 lifecycle, but Microsoft's aggressive approach to > > deprecating old compilers and C runtimes means I think we don't have much > > choice. > > Ultimately, compilers are probably going to be deprecated more quickly now that we're on a faster release cadence, which makes it more important that Python 2.7 is prepared for an unknown future. > > > In the near term, if Stackless build to a different DLL name under VS2010 and > > make it clear to their users that extension compatibility issues are possible > > (or even likely) if they aren't rebuilt from source, then I think that would be > > compatible with the above proposal for a way forward. > > Then we'd just need some volunteers to write and implement a PEP or two :) > > I'm happy to work on a PEP and changes for what I described above, if there's enough interest? I can also update distutils to detect and build with any available compiler, though this may be more of a feature than we'd want for 2.7 at this point.
That's part of what a PEP can help us decide, though, so if you're willing to put one together, that would be great :) Cheers, Nick. > > Cheers, > Steve > > > (Note, similar to the Mac OS X situation, I think we should do this without > > hosting any new interpreter variants on python.org - VS2010 and VS2013 source > > builds would become separate build-from-source ecosystems for extensions, using > > sdists on PyPI as the default distribution mechanism)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
