Paul Moore wrote:
On 10 October 2014 17:28, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There are 55 open issues on the bug tracker with mingw in the title.
It's not easy to tell, but on a spot check a fair proportion of them
seem to be about distutils/extension builds. And a lot of the rest
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Roumen Petrov
bugtr...@roumenpetrov.info wrote:
Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
[SKIP]
=== MinGW
Some people tried to compile Python. See for example:
https://bitbucket.org/puqing/python-mingw
We even got some patches:
http://bugs.python.org/issue3871
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:30:51 + (UTC)
Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
CPython doesn't require OpenBLAS. Not that I am not receptive to the
needs of the numeric community... but, on the other hand, who in the
hell releases a library
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
But you can compile OpenBLAS with one compiler and then link it to
Python using another compiler, right? There is a single C ABI.
BLAS and LAPACK are actually Fortran, which does not have a single C ABI.
The ABI depends on the Fortran compiler. g77 and
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:59:52 + (UTC)
Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
But you can compile OpenBLAS with one compiler and then link it to
Python using another compiler, right? There is a single C ABI.
BLAS and LAPACK are actually
Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
BLAS and LAPACK are actually Fortran, which does not have a single C ABI.
The ABI depends on the Fortran compiler. g77 and gfortran will produce
different C ABIs. This is a consistent source of PITA in any scientific
programming that combines C
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
It sound like whatever MSVC produces should be the defacto standard
under Windows.
Yes, and that is what Clang does on Windows. It is not as usable as MinGW
yet, but soon it will be. Clang also suffers fronthe lack of a Fortran
compiler, though.
From: Sturla Moldenmailto:sturla.mol...@gmail.com
Sent: 10/11/2014 7:22
To: python-dev@python.orgmailto:python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of C compilers for Python on Windows
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
It sound like whatever MSVC produces
On 11 Oct 2014 14:42, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:30:51 + (UTC)
Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
CPython doesn't require OpenBLAS. Not that I am not receptive to the
needs of the numeric
Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Is there some reason the Fortran part can't be separated out into a DLL?
DLL hell, I assume. Using the Python extension module loader makes it less
of a problem. If we stick with .pyd files where everything is statically
linked we can rely on the
from my Windows Phone
From: Sturla Moldenmailto:sturla.mol...@gmail.com
Sent: 10/11/2014 9:59
To: python-dev@python.orgmailto:python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of C compilers for Python on Windows
Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote
...@gmail.com
Sent: 10/11/2014 7:22
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of C compilers for Python on Windows
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
It sound like whatever MSVC produces should be the defacto standard
under Windows.
Yes, and that is what Clang
On 11 October 2014 19:32, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
The bigger problem is that getting a usable DLL at all is a serious
challenge. Some of the issues we deal with: (a) the classic, stable mingw
has no 64-bit support, (b) the only portable way to compile fortran (f2c)
only works for
Sent: 10/11/2014 9:59
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of C compilers for Python on Windows
Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Is there some reason the Fortran part can't be separated out into a
DLL?
DLL hell, I assume. Using the Python extension
On 10 October 2014 01:29, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
What about the Python stable ABI? Would it be broken if we use a
different compiler?
What about third party Python extensions?
What about external dependencies like gzip, bz2, Tk, Tcl, OpenSSL, etc.?
The key point for
Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
You may want to get in touch with Carl Kleffner -- he's done a bunch
of work lately on getting a mingw-based toolchain to the point where
it can build numpy and scipy.
To build *Python extensions*, one can use Carl's toolchain or the VC9
compiler for
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that, I'm personally not interested in this, as I am happy
with MSVC Express. Python 3.5 will be using MSVC 14, where the express
edition supports both 32 and 64 bit.
If you build Python yourself, you can (more or less) use whichever version
On 10/10/2014 08:07 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 10 October 2014 01:29, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
What about the Python stable ABI? Would it be broken if we use a
different compiler?
What about third party Python extensions?
What about external dependencies like gzip, bz2,
2014-10-10 11:18 GMT+02:00 Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com:
If you build Python yourself, you can (more or less) use whichever version
of Visual Studio you want. There is nothing that prevents you from building
Python 2.7 or 3.4 with MSVC 14.
Python 2.7 provides project files (PCbuild/*)
Hi,
Paul Moore wrote:
The key point for me is that any supported build on Windows supports
the exact same ABI.
It looks like ABI compatibility is a goal of Clang on Windows:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/MSVCCompatibility.html
http://blog.llvm.org/2014/07/clangllvm-on-windows-update.html
On 10.10.2014 11:26, Larry Hastings wrote:
On 10/10/2014 08:07 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 10 October 2014 01:29, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
What about the Python stable ABI? Would it be broken if we use a
different compiler?
What about third party Python extensions?
On 10 October 2014 02:29, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
The free version (Visual Studio Express) only supports 32-bit
VC++ 2008/2010 EE do not *bundle* a 64-bit compiler, but it's certainly
possible to build 64-bit applications by using the compiler in the (also
free) Windows
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
Just to make something clear that may not be clear to non-Windows
developers: the C library is implicitly part of the ABI.
MacOS X also has this issue, but it less known amon Mac developers! There
tends to be multiple versions of the C library, one
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Is MinGW fully compatible with MSVS ABI? I read that it reuses the
MSVCRT, but I don't know if it's enough.
Not out of the box. See:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/wiki/Mingw-static-toolchain
Sturla
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
So as a practical matter I think I'd prefer if we continued to only
support MSVC. In fact I'd prefer it if we removed support for other
Windows compilers, instead asking those maintainers to publish their own
patches / repos, in the way that Stackless
Merlijn van Deen valhall...@arctus.nl wrote:
VC++ 2008/2010 EE do not *bundle* a 64-bit compiler,
Actually it does, but it is not available from the UI. You can use it from
the command line, though.
Sturla
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Victor Stinner victor.stinner at gmail.com writes:
Hi,
Windows is not the primary target of Python developers, probably
because most of them work on Linux. Official Python binaries are
currently built by Microsoft Visual Studio. Even if Python developers
get free licenses thanks for
On 10 October 2014 10:50, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Is MinGW fully compatible with MSVS ABI? I read that it reuses the
MSVCRT, but I don't know if it's enough. I guess that a full ABI
compatibility means more than just using the C library, calling
convention and much more.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Windows is not the primary target of Python developers, probably
because most of them work on Linux. Official Python binaries are
currently built by Microsoft Visual Studio. Even if Python developers
get free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/10/2014 05:26 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
IMO the benefit from supporting other compilers on Windows is
negligible
Did you miss the OP's point that OpenBLAS cannot be compiled with MSVC,
raising the priority of mingw-buildable extensions for
I don't think this is exactly on the same axis. Being able Python to
build with a free compiler won't change this issue. Scientific Python
won't be only the free compiler version, Visual Studio would remain
the main citizen. It may fragment a little bit more the environment
with people needing to
On 10 October 2014 15:36, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
On 10/10/2014 05:26 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
IMO the benefit from supporting other compilers on Windows is
negligible
Did you miss the OP's point that OpenBLAS cannot be compiled with MSVC,
raising the priority of
On 10/10/2014 01:29, Victor Stinner wrote:
=== MinGW
Some people tried to compile Python. See for example:
https://bitbucket.org/puqing/python-mingw
We even got some patches:
http://bugs.python.org/issue3871 (rejected)
There are 55 open issues on the bug tracker with mingw in the title.
On 10.10.2014 14:05, Paul Moore wrote:
On 10 October 2014 10:50, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Is MinGW fully compatible with MSVS ABI? I read that it reuses the
MSVCRT, but I don't know if it's enough. I guess that a full ABI
compatibility means more than just using the C
On 10 October 2014 17:28, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There are 55 open issues on the bug tracker with mingw in the title.
It's not easy to tell, but on a spot check a fair proportion of them
seem to be about distutils/extension builds. And a lot of the rest are
related to
From Victor Stinner:
I know that it's hard to replace Visual Studio. I don't want to do it right
now, but I would like to discuss that with you.
I have read the rest of the thread, but I want to start from this point. I'm
probably going to run off in random directions since there are a lot
On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Cross compilation is a valid issue, but I hope that build services like
Appveyor also help out here. There is regular talk about the PSF/PyPI
providing something similar, though I have doubts about its feasibility
On 10/10/2014 03:36 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
On 10/10/2014 05:26 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
IMO the benefit from supporting other compilers on Windows is
negligible
Did you miss the OP's point that OpenBLAS cannot be compiled with MSVC,
raising the priority of mingw-buildable extensions for
Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
I don't have any official confirmation, but my guess would be that the
64-bit compilers were omitted from the VC 2008 Express to save space
(bearing in mind that WinXP was the main target at that time, which had
poor 64-bit support, and very few
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
CPython doesn't require OpenBLAS. Not that I am not receptive to the
needs of the numeric community... but, on the other hand, who in the
hell releases a library with Windows support that doesn't work with MSVC?!
It uses ATT assembly syntax instead of
Hi,
Windows is not the primary target of Python developers, probably
because most of them work on Linux. Official Python binaries are
currently built by Microsoft Visual Studio. Even if Python developers
get free licenses thanks for Microsoft, I would prefer to use an open
source compiler if it
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Windows is not the primary target of Python developers, probably
because most of them work on Linux. Official Python binaries are
currently built by Microsoft Visual Studio. Even if Python developers
get free
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
