Hi Corinna,
On Fri, 5 Mar 2021, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 5 01:11, Mark Geisert wrote:
Marco Atzeri via Cygwin wrote:
On 04.03.2021 21:17, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 04.03.2021 16:17, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 3/4/2021 6:50 AM, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 12:11:11 +0100
marco atzeri wrote:
I have no problem to patch Python to solve the issue,
but I have not seen evidence of the dlsym mechanism .
But of course I an NOT and expert in this field.
If someone looking to the code can give me some hints,
I will appreciate
I am also not sure where the dlsym() is used in python.
At least, os.uname() works in python 3.8.7 and 2.7.18 in my
environment even without that snippet. It seems that os.uname()
does not use dlsym(). Do I overlook something?
This all started because Mark reported a problem building python 3.8.3:
https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/2020-December/040765.html
https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-developers/2020-December/012019.html
It's strange that Marco never bumped into the problem.
Ken
I never built python using cygwin snapshots as Mark was trying to do,
all my builds were using 3.1.7.
Let me set a separate enviroment for building on latest snapshot
I can not replicate with latest snapshot
$ uname -svr
CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW 3.2.0s(0.340/5/3) 2021-03-01 15:42
nor in 64bit when building 3.8.8
For what I see the DLL is always using a proper import
from cygwin1.dll
$ objdump -x libpython3.8.dll |grep uname
2b9de0 2170 uname
2b9de8 2171 uname_x
the only thing not standard on my build system is a case sensitive
filesystem and mount
I had concerns that I had somehow corrupted my build environment, and it was
Marco's successes that convinced me to reinstall 3.1.7 to recover a
known-good environment. Then seeing Marco go ahead and release the
different Python releases (yay!) I didn't investigate any further.
I'm now trying to locate the os.uname usage of dlopen/dlsym again just for
the record but am having some difficulty. I'll reply again when I've got
it.
Guys,
if it turns out that we fixed a problem that doesn't actually is a
real-world problem, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just revert the Cygwin
patch we're talking about here (commit 532b91d24e9496) and be done with
it.
Special casing dynamic loading of uname just to support some experimental
bordercase doesn't make much sense. In that case I'm all for "don't do
that"!
That may well be the appropriate endpoint, but please let me dig a little
further into the recent Python versions. The fact that they had an
explicit dlopen/dlsym to get at uname(), but now they don't, troubles me.
I want to be sure us Cygwin folk aren't in an inadvertent "arms race" with
the Python devs over the uname API change. Dunno why this didn't occur
15+ years ago, but here we are.
I think it was in Python's Modules/posixmodule.c. They're certainly using
uname() directly in their most recent builds. But I believe that wasn't
always the case, even just a few months ago. Let me dig for a day or two.
Thanks,
..mark
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
