Please contact robert.s.c...@intel.com if you want a free license to intel
compilers or tools.
From: M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.commailto:m...@egenix.com
Ø BTW: I remember there was some discussion a while ago to get ICC licenses to
core devs. Has there been any progress
on this ?
Zachary Ware wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com
wrote:
This also makes it more viable to use the Windows SDK compilers. If you
install the Windows SDK 7.0 (which includes MSVC9) and Windows SDK 7.1 (which
includes the platform toolset files for
On 22.06.2015 19:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
Hi,
As you may know, Steve Dower put significant effort into rewriting the
project files used by the Windows build as part of moving to VC14 as
the official compiler for Python 3.5. Compared to the project files
for 3.4 (and older), the new project
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
On 22.06.2015 19:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
Using the backported project files to build 2.7 would require two
versions of Visual Studio to be installed; VS2010 (or newer) would be
required in addition to VS2008. All Windows
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
For VS 2008 we now have a long-term solution thanks to MS.
Without the change to the project files, the compiler at
http://aka.ms/vcpython27 isn't sufficient to build Python itself. In theory,
with even more patching to the projects (or otherwise making up for the fact
On 25.06.2015 17:12, Zachary Ware wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
On 22.06.2015 19:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
Using the backported project files to build 2.7 would require two
versions of Visual Studio to be installed; VS2010 (or newer) would be
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
On 25.06.2015 17:12, Zachary Ware wrote:
The old files are moved to PC/VS9.0, and they work as expected as far
as I've tested them.
So it's still possible to build with just VS 2008 installed
or will the VS 2010 (or later)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
This also makes it more viable to use the Windows SDK compilers. If you
install the Windows SDK 7.0 (which includes MSVC9) and Windows SDK 7.1 (which
includes the platform toolset files for MSVC9 - toolsets were
On Jun 23, 2015, at 06:27, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.com wrote:
On 23.06.15 06:42, Zachary Ware wrote:
Christian, what say you? Would having the project files from 3.5
backported to 2.7 (but still using MSVC 9) be positive, negative, or
indifferent for Stackless?
I am very positive
Hi Zack,
On 23.06.15 06:42, Zachary Ware wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest explicitly reaching out to the Stackless folks to get
their feedback. As I believe the switched to a newer compiler and VC
runtime for Windows a while back, I
On 22/06/2015 18:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
As you may know, Steve Dower put significant effort into rewriting the
project files used by the Windows build as part of moving to VC14 as
the official compiler for Python 3.5. Compared to the project files
for 3.4 (and older), the new project files
Zachary Ware wrote:
With the stipulation that the officially supported compiler won't change, I
want
to make sure there's no major opposition to replacing the old project files in
PCbuild. The old files would move to PC\VS9.0, so they'll still be available
and
usable if necessary.
I'm
I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
There is now the ms compiler for 2.7 would that work? Or only in
concert with VS2010 express?
-CHB
and Intel is
willing to fund that work as part of making Python ICC compilable
Updating the build system to better handle changes in underlying platforms
is one of the standard exemptions arising from Python 2.7's long term
support status, so if this change makes things easier for contributors on
Windows, +1 from me.
Cheers,
Nick.
On 23 June 2015 at 11:45, Zachary Ware zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
There is now
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
There is now the ms compiler for 2.7 would that work? Or only in
concert with VS2010
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest explicitly reaching out to the Stackless folks to get
their feedback. As I believe the switched to a newer compiler and VC
runtime for Windows a while back, I suspect it will make their lives
easier rather
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Zachary Ware wrote:
With the stipulation that the officially supported compiler won't change, I
want
to make sure there's no major opposition to replacing the old project files
in
PCbuild. The old files would
18 matches
Mail list logo
