Ray Donnelly wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 October 2014 23:22, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
My point is that your Windows build would not have the same
Frank, Matthew I matthew.i.frank at intel.com writes:
4. Module _decimal is failing to compile. The problem is that it has
a header called memory.h. Android's libc has the problem that
/usr/include/stdlib.h includes memory.h. But the build system
puts -I. on the include path
On 26.10.2014 00:14, Ned Deily wrote:
In article m28uk4wxod@valheru.db3l.homeip.net,
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com writes:
which appears to die mid-stream while receiving the manifests.
So I'm sort of hoping there might be some record
Thanks all for the responses. Clearly this is a subject about which
people feel strongly, so that's good at least. David Murray's guidance
in particular points to the most likely path to get improvements to
really happen.
Steve Dower:
Building CPython for Windows is not something that needs
You shouldnt have to emulate that. The exact behavior of GC is allowed to vary between systems.
Yes, of course. I am looking into this for JyNI, which in contrast should emulate CPython behavior as good as possible.
And for such details, -one by one- I am currently weighting up whether its
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
Thanks all for the responses. Clearly this is a subject about which
people feel strongly, so that's good at least. David Murray's guidance
in particular points to the most likely path to get improvements to
really happen.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:12:45 -0700, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
Steve Dower:
Building CPython for Windows is not something that needs solving.
Not in your opinion, but numerous packagers of MinGW-based native or
cross-compiled package sets would love to include Python. The fact
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Ray Donnelly mingw.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
Thanks all for the responses. Clearly this is a subject about which
people feel strongly, so that's good at least. David Murray's guidance
in
Hi Stefan,
On 26 October 2014 02:50, Stefan Richthofer stefan.richtho...@gmx.de wrote:
It appears weakrefs are only cleared if this is done by gc (where no
resurrection can happen anyway). If a resurrection-performing-__del__ is
just called by ref-count-drop-to-0, weakrefs persist -
How do
If this includes (or would likely include) a significant portion of the
Scientific Computing community, I would think that would be a compelling
use case.
I can't speak for any of the scientific computing community besides myself,
but my thoughts: much of the development, as you know, happens
On 26 October 2014 13:12, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
Only cross-compilation and the build system in the above list are relevant
to CPython, but I hope I have convinced you, Paul Moore, etc. that there are
real reasons for some groups of users and developers to prefer MinGW-w64
over
On 26 October 2014 17:59, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
Ensuring compatibility with CPython's
chosen msvcrt has made that work even more difficult for them.
Ensuring compatibility with CPython's msvcrt is mandatory unless you
want to create a split in the community over which
On 26 October 2014 14:28, Ray Donnelly mingw.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
I like this idea. To reduce the workload, we should probably pick
Python3 (at least initially)?
Aren't the existing patches on the tracker already for Python 3.5+?
They should be, as that's the only version that's likely to
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 October 2014 13:12, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
Only cross-compilation and the build system in the above list are relevant
to CPython, but I hope I have convinced you, Paul Moore, etc. that there are
real
Not really, to be honest. I still don't understand why anyone not
directly involved in CPython development would need to build their own
Python executable on Windows. Can you explain a single specific
situation where installing and using the python.org executable is not
possible
I want, and in
On 26 October 2014 23:24, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
I want, and in many places *need*, an all-MinGW stack.
OK, I'm willing to accept that statement. But I don't understand it,
and I don't think you've explained why you *need* your CPython
interpreter to be compiled with mingw (as
On 26 October 2014 23:11, Ray Donnelly mingw.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know where this ABI compatible thing came into being;
Simple. If a mingw-built CPython doesn't work with the same extensions
as a MSVC-built CPython, then the community gets fragmented (because
you can only use the
Zitat von Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu:
A maintainer has volunteered. Others will help. Can any core developers
please begin reviewing some of his patches?
Unfortunately, every attempt to review these patches has failed for me,
every time. In the last iteration of an attempt to add
18 matches
Mail list logo
