On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Roumen Petrov
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 (rejected)
Paul Moore wrote:
On 10 October 2014 17:28, Mark Lawrence 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 http://b
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 (rejected)
[SNIP]
As "all in one" patch it was rejected , but you could find splits:
17605 -
__
> From: Sturla Molden
> 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 wrote:
>
> > Is there some reason the Fortran part can't be separ
On 11 October 2014 19:32, Nathaniel Smith 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 the ancien
y Windows Phone
> --
> From: Sturla Molden
> 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 wrote:
>
> > It sound like whatever MSVC produc
to.
Top-posted from my Windows Phone
From: Sturla Molden<mailto:sturla.mol...@gmail.com>
Sent: 10/11/2014 9:59
To: python-dev@python.org<mailto:python-dev@python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of C compilers for Python on Windows
Steve Dow
Steve Dower 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 Python dev team to make sur
On 11 Oct 2014 14:42, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:30:51 + (UTC)
> Sturla Molden wrote:
> > Larry Hastings 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
>
dows Phone
From: Sturla Molden<mailto:sturla.mol...@gmail.com>
Sent: 10/11/2014 7:22
To: python-dev@python.org<mailto:python-dev@python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of C compilers for Python on Windows
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> It sound like whatever MS
Antoine Pitrou 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.
Sturla
___
Sturla Molden 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 and Fortran.
>
> Ther
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:59:52 + (UTC)
Sturla Molden wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou 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 singl
Antoine Pitrou 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 gfortran will pro
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:30:51 + (UTC)
Sturla Molden wrote:
> Larry Hastings 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
Larry Hastings 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 AT&T assembly syntax instead of Intel assembly
Steve Dower 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 people cared about build
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 numer
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Steve Dower 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 under
> any model oth
>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 10 October 2014 17:28, Mark Lawrence 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 http://bugs.python.org/issue
On 10.10.2014 14:05, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 10 October 2014 10:50, Victor Stinner 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
>> c
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.
S
On 10 October 2014 15:36, 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 extensio
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 p
-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
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Victor Stinner 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 licenses thanks for
On 10 October 2014 10:50, Victor Stinner 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.
MinGW can be made t
Victor Stinner 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 Microsoft, I w
Merlijn van Deen 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
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail
Larry Hastings 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 does.
The sci
Victor Stinner 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
___
Python-Dev mailin
Larry Hastings 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 for each SDK versio
On 10 October 2014 02:29, Victor Stinner 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 SDK:
http://jenshuebel
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 wrote:
>>> What about the Python stable ABI? Would it be broken if we use a
>>> different compiler?
>>>
>>> What about third party Python extensions?
>>>
>>> What a
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
2014-10-10 11:18 GMT+02:00 Sturla Molden :
> 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/*) for Visual Studio 20
On 10/10/2014 08:07 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 10 October 2014 01:29, Victor Stinner 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.?
T
Paul Moore 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
of Visual Studio y
Nathaniel Smith 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 Python 2.7 that
On 10 October 2014 01:29, Victor Stinner 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 me is that any supp
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Victor Stinner
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 licenses thanks fo
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 wo
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
