On 30 Jan, 2007, at 23:13, Christopher Barker wrote: > Hi all, > > I had a question/comment from a numpy/Scipy developer that I was asked > to forward on: > >>> To get the "definition" of "universal" I went to >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Binaries >>> >>> the last paragraph says: >>> Apple's Xcode 2.4 takes the concept of universal binaries even >>> further, by allowing four-architecture binaries to be created (32 >>> and >>> 64 bit for both Intel and PowerPC), therefore allowing a single >>> executable to take full advantage of the CPU capabilities of any Mac >>> OS X machine > > What are folk's thoughts on building "quad binary" universal builds in > the future? Is there much point? Are there any 64bit Intel Macs? What > difference might a 64bit build make on a G5?
I'd love to see a 4-way universal build of python, but mostly just because of the coolness factor not that I really need it. As Bob noted this isn't as simple as turning on extra CFLAGS and I don't have time to work on this for the forseeable future. With a 4-way universal build I'd make the framework itself 4-way universal and have two sets of python interpreters: "python/ python2.5" and "python-64/python2.5-64". That way users can explicitly choose if they want to use a 64-bit build. This is a hard requirement for Tiger because of the severe limitations on the API's you can use there in 64-bit mode, but even on Leopard 64-bit is not always the right choice. Ronald _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
