On 1/30/07, Christopher Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Bob, > > We can always count on you for having useful ideas about all sorts of stuff. > > It does sound like a quad binary wouldn't be a good idea. > > > For intel it's probably a bit different because there's more registers > > and whatnot in 64-bit mode... so it may actually be an overall > > performance win for machines that can do it. > > > > I think all Core 2 Duo machines are x86-64 capable. > > Isn't that all Intel Macs?
No. The first few revisions were Core Duo, not Core 2 Duo. The MacBook Pro I have definitely isn't 64-bit or 802.11n... > > The problem with a quad binary build is that there's a lot more > > difference between 32-bit and 64-bit than there is from PPC and Intel. > > Wow! that's a surprise to me. I suppose there are a LOT of 32 bit > assumptions built into a lot of code. It's not so much that there are 32-bit assumptions but that there are checks that do different things between 32-bit and 64-bit code, and if that check is done during configure or setup.py then it's not compatible with the way that universal binaries are typically built. > > It would be a lot of work to make that happen. It would also end up in > > pain because I believe that a 64-bit machine would default to using > > the 64-bit version of the executable which wouldn't be compatible with > > any existing extensions. > > Would setup.py build Universal extensions right (if the extension was > written to support 64 bit)? Sure. Distutils builds things the same way that Python was built unless you tell it otherwise. > > It would make a lot of sense to have a 64-bit python distribution that > > was built for x86-64 and ppc64... > > Hmm. I like that idea. Now we just need a bunch of people to find the > time..... Good luck :) Personally I have neither the time, need, or the (intel) hardware. -bob _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
