Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Python (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f43-python.html)
-   -   Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1 (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t333033-re-released-python-2-4-alpha-1-a.html)

Mike C. Fletcher 07-09-2004 08:21 PM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
I don't see note of switch to Visual Studio .NET for Win32 builds, but
somehow I'd thought that was planned for the 2.4 timeframe. Did I get
that wrong? Do we wait for 2.5 for that?

Itching to be able to use the free compiler to generate PyOpenGL binaries,
Mike

Anthony Baxter wrote:

> On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm
> happy to announce the first alpha of Python 2.4.


....
________________________________________________
Mike C. Fletcher
Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/
blog: http://zope.vex.net/~mcfletch/plumbing/


=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= 07-09-2004 08:41 PM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
> I don't see note of switch to Visual Studio .NET for Win32 builds, but
> somehow I'd thought that was planned for the 2.4 timeframe. Did I get
> that wrong?


The Windows binaries are built with VS .NET 2003 indeed (i.e. *not*
with Visual Studio .NET). It might not have been mentioned, but then,
it is only one of the many changes, and a comparatively minor one
(for Windows, using Windows Installer is more significant, as it affects
more users).

Regards,
Martin


=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= 07-09-2004 08:41 PM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
> I don't see note of switch to Visual Studio .NET for Win32 builds, but
> somehow I'd thought that was planned for the 2.4 timeframe. Did I get
> that wrong?


The Windows binaries are built with VS .NET 2003 indeed (i.e. *not*
with Visual Studio .NET). It might not have been mentioned, but then,
it is only one of the many changes, and a comparatively minor one
(for Windows, using Windows Installer is more significant, as it affects
more users).

Regards,
Martin


=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= 07-09-2004 08:45 PM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
> I don't see note of switch to Visual Studio .NET for Win32 builds, but
> somehow I'd thought that was planned for the 2.4 timeframe. Did I get
> that wrong?


Actually, it is mentioned in the "What's new" document:

http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/...00000000000000

Regards,
Martin


=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= 07-09-2004 08:45 PM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
> I don't see note of switch to Visual Studio .NET for Win32 builds, but
> somehow I'd thought that was planned for the 2.4 timeframe. Did I get
> that wrong?


Actually, it is mentioned in the "What's new" document:

http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/...00000000000000

Regards,
Martin


Mike C. Fletcher 07-09-2004 09:57 PM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
Martin v. L÷wis wrote:

> Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
>
>> I don't see note of switch to Visual Studio .NET for Win32 builds,
>> but somehow I'd thought that was planned for the 2.4 timeframe. Did
>> I get that wrong?

>
>
> Actually, it is mentioned in the "What's new" document:
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/...00000000000000
>


Well, no ;) :) . What's mentioned there is that it *builds*, not that
the Python.org installer version *is built* with it, those are two
different issues, particularly for extension writers, as we target the
Python.org distributed version almost exclusively. Whether it's
possible to build Python with a given compiler is an academic question
if people don't generally have compilers or compile things.

IMO it's not really a "minor" issue for Windows. It means that (in the
interim) extension developers need to have both VS6 and VS.NET (2003)
installed to build for < 2.4 and >=2.4. That's fine (after all, there's
a free VS.Net version compatible with the new Python IIRC), and I'm all
for it, but I'd actually consider it a fairly major new feature for a
platform where previously there's been no freely-available C/C++
compiler compatible with the current Python build. (Well, save with
some serious hacking about).

Have fun,
Mike

________________________________________________
Mike C. Fletcher
Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/
blog: http://zope.vex.net/~mcfletch/plumbing/



=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= 07-09-2004 10:41 PM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
> IMO it's not really a "minor" issue for Windows. It means that (in the
> interim) extension developers need to have both VS6 and VS.NET (2003)
> installed to build for < 2.4 and >=2.4. That's fine (after all, there's
> a free VS.Net version compatible with the new Python IIRC), and I'm all
> for it, but I'd actually consider it a fairly major new feature for a
> platform where previously there's been no freely-available C/C++
> compiler compatible with the current Python build. (Well, save with
> some serious hacking about).


I don't think anybody has demonstrated yet that you can actually build
extensions with the Microsoft compiler that is free of charge.

OTOH, the situation with respect to other compilers hasn't changed
much: You can build extension modules with mingw32 now roughly as
easily as you can with earlier Python releases.

Of course, the change is still important for people who build
extension modules on Windows: For all practical purposes, they need
a different Microsoft compiler now.

However, I still maintain that other changes (e.g. PEP 237) will
affect way more people.

Regards,
Martin


Terry Reedy 07-10-2004 12:27 AM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 

> I don't think anybody has demonstrated yet that you can actually build
> extensions with the Microsoft compiler that is free of charge.


Which means that reports on experiments attempting to do so would be a
service to the community ;-)

tjr




Paul Moore 07-10-2004 09:43 AM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu> writes:

>> I don't think anybody has demonstrated yet that you can actually build
>> extensions with the Microsoft compiler that is free of charge.

>
> Which means that reports on experiments attempting to do so would be a
> service to the community ;-)


I haven't had success with the free MS compiler yet, but have built
extensions successfully with mingw. It needs a patch
(http://www.python.org/sf/870382) but otherwise works pretty well
modulo the usual need, documented in the distutils docs, to build
libpython24.a.

Paul
--
This signature intentionally left blank

Paul Moore 07-10-2004 11:18 AM

Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1
 
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu> writes:

>> I don't think anybody has demonstrated yet that you can actually build
>> extensions with the Microsoft compiler that is free of charge.

>
> Which means that reports on experiments attempting to do so would be a
> service to the community ;-)


Hmm. I have just done some basic experimentation.

I have 4 C compilers installed, on Windows XP Pro.

1. Microsoft Visual C++ 6
2. Mingw
3. Microsoft .NET SDK (non-optimising C compiler)
4. Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003

I do not have Visual Studio .NET (any version) installed.

Of these, (1) is not suitable for building extensions for the
python.org Python 2.4, because of CRT differences (as we know).

Also, (4) is not suitable, as it only supports static libraries for
the CRT, and hence not msvcr71.

As I've reported, (a suitably recent version of) mingw works (with a
patch to distutils).

The remaining option is (3). This can build msvcr71-compatible DLLs,
and so should be an option.

I set up my environment to point to the .NET SDK (so that the cl
command executes the .NET SDK compiler). Then, I tried python setup.py
build on a small extenson I had to hand. The result was that I got the
following error:

error: Python was built with version 7.1 of Visual Studio, and
extensions need to be built with the same version of the compiler, but
it isn't installed.

Apparently, distutils is looking in the registry, and finding MSVC6 (I
know it does this, as it can build with an installed Visual Studio
even if the environment variables are not set up). It does not,
apparently, notice that the PATH includes a later "cl" command, which
is suitable.

So, it seems that as things stand, distutils can only build extensions
compatible with the standard python 2.4 distribution, using Visual
Studio .NET 2003, or with mingw (using my patch).

I'm reluctant to try fixing distutils to accept the .NET SDK compiler,
as I can't verify that any changes I make won't break VS.NET 2003
compatibility (as I don't have that compiler).

I hope this is of some use.

Paul.
--
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation -- Saki


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.