Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Yes, I know it changes the ABI, and I know it must say as it is. I
> believe that Py_DEBUG is mostly useful to core developers and not much to
> extension developer or regular Python developers, but it's immaterial in
> this discussion.
Py_DEBUG builds are useful to exten
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:31:56 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:09:18 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
Actually, I am. Py3k will already remove usage of stdio, for file
input and output.
>>
Are you doing this work on some public branch?
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:19:30 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Thus, I'm hereby proposing that we change this in Py3k so that Python's
>> debug mode does not mandate any ABI change anymore.
>
> It seems people still debate what it is that you *actually* want.
Yes, sorry for the confusion.
> Th
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:09:18 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>>> Actually, I am. Py3k will already remove usage of stdio, for file input
>>> and output.
>
>>> Are you doing this work on some public branch?
>> Yes, on the Py3k branch, and the trunk.
>
> I looked at fileobj
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:09:18 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Actually, I am. Py3k will already remove usage of stdio, for file input
>> and output.
>> Are you doing this work on some public branch?
>
> Yes, on the Py3k branch, and the trunk.
I looked at fileobject.c in py3k branch today and i
On Feb 14, 11:13 pm, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been exercising the new keyword-only arguments syntax. It is
> > absolutely wonderful. I'm amazed at how many long standing problems it
>
> Thus, I'm hereby proposing that we change this in Py3k so that Python's
> debug mode does not mandate any ABI change anymore.
It seems people still debate what it is that you *actually* want. This
sentence suggests Christian's interpretation, i.e. you might be unaware
that the debug mode not on
>> I have plans to reduce usage of the CRT as much as possible. I don't
>> believe that linking statically would actually work very well.
>
> Given a reduced usage of CRT, why statically linking should not work?
When this project is complete (say, in 2015), there won't be a need
to link staticall
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Actually, I think Giovanni simply wants to be able to build extension
> modules with debugging information, *without* needing to use a Py_DEBUG build.
>
> That is, this is about using debug extensions with a release Python,
> not the other way 'round. And if I understand
> Are you doing this work on some public branch?
Yes, on the Py3k branch, and the trunk.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman
At 03:23 PM 2/17/2008 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
>Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > Python's debug mode under Windows mandates an ABI change: the debug
> > version of dynamic libraries (_d) are linked against the CRT debug
> > runtime, which is not ABI-compatible to the release runtime. So you
> > eithe
At 09:29 AM 2/17/2008 +, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:20:03PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > But maybe given how rare the use case is, it would be easier to just
> > create a custom class in weakref.py that does what Nick requested.
>
>I still don't like the silent fai
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Python's debug mode under Windows mandates an ABI change: the debug
> version of dynamic libraries (_d) are linked against the CRT debug
> runtime, which is not ABI-compatible to the release runtime. So you
> either have the _d version of all the extensions you need or you
Hi,
an issue related to the CRT removal/reduced usage under Windows is that
of debug mode, which I stand that it is mostly useless as it is currently
implemented.
Python's debug mode under Windows mandates an ABI change: the debug
version of dynamic libraries (_d) are linked against the CRT de
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:58:51 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> BTW: is there a long-time plan to make the Python core *not* link
>> against msvcrt dll anymore but only rely on Windows APIs (or maybe also
>> the static C runtime, I don't really care)?
>
> I have plans to reduce usage of the CRT as
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:01:10 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> If you avoided the static CRT, and only used Windows APIs, that would
>> avoid this issue, but that means reimplementing everything -
>> malloc/free, FILE*, stdin/stdout/stderr, etc etc. I don't think anyone
>> is contemplating that.
>
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > But maybe given how rare the use case is, it would be easier to just
> > create a custom class in weakref.py that does what Nick requested.
>
> Nick would still forget to use it and get strange bugs
> in his code, though!
More
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:20:03PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But maybe given how rare the use case is, it would be easier to just
> create a custom class in weakref.py that does what Nick requested.
I still don't like the silent failure, but a noisy failure and a
custom class would be great
18 matches
Mail list logo
