Hi again.

Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> I wonder, if done correctly (and I believe some people, e.g. Andreas
>> Jung, have managed to get mingw to build binary eggs for them), are
>> mingw-based eggs any worse than Visual C ones?
> A few years ago, MinGW (the native port is still based on GCC 3.4)
> compiled C extensions were a bit slower than those compiled with Visual
> C. But I haven't tried this in recent years.
> My knowledge of C compilation is too limited to judge if there are some
> hidden pitfalls here, though.

In order to let some people judge the result of eggs built based on my
howto I made one example egg for zope.interface 3.4.0.

The egg is available from

The relevant log from the bdist_egg looks like this:

running build_ext
building '_zope_interface_coptimizations' extension
creating build\temp.win32-2.4
creating build\temp.win32-2.4\Release
creating build\temp.win32-2.4\Release\src
creating build\temp.win32-2.4\Release\src\zope
creating build\temp.win32-2.4\Release\src\zope\interface
C:\MinGW\bin\gcc.exe -mno-cygwin -mdll -O -Wall -IC:\Python24\include
-IC:\Python24\PC -c src\zope\interface\_zope_interface_coptimizations.c
C:\MinGW\bin\gcc.exe -mno-cygwin -shared -s
-LC:\Python24\libs -LC:\Python24\PCBuild -lpython24 -lmsvcr71 -o

Python is version 2.4.4, GCC is 3.4.2 (mingw-special).

If someone tells me, that the eggs I generate this way are valid and of
some use, I'm happy to help to build some more ;)


Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to