Re: [Numpy-discussion] Questions about cross-compiling extensions for mac-ppc and mac-intel
Zachary Pincus wrote: building python extensions as Mac-PPC and Mac-Intel fat binaries, so I'm turning to the wisdom of this list for a few questions. I'd try the pythonmac list too -- there are folks there that actually understand all this! My general goal is to make a double-clickable Mac installer of a set of tools built around numpy, numpy's distutils, a very hacked-up version of PIL, and some fortran code too. To this end, I need to figure out how to get the numpy distutils to cross-compile, generating PPC code and Intel code in separate builds -- and/or generating a universal binary all in one go. (I'd like to distribute a universal version of numpy, but I think that my own code needs to be built/distributed separately for each architecture due to endian- ness issues.) hmm -- maybe you'd be better off dealing with the endian issues in your code -- i.e. dealing with it at runtime, rather than compile time. Is there explicit support in distutils for this, or is it a matter of setting the proper environment variables to entice gcc and gfortran to generate code for a specific architecture? I'm no expert, but the glory of distutils is that it will, by default build extensions the same way as python itself was built. So if you use a PPC python, you'll get PPC extensions, same with Intel, and if you use a Universal Python, you'll get a Universal extension. The trick is that while you can build Universal on either platform, you can't use this trick to build Intel extensions on a PPC mac, as the Python would have to be intel, and a PPC mac won't run an Intel Python. It may be possible to run a PPC Python on an Intel Mac with Rosettta, though. In any case, Universal is probably the best bet except for your Fortran code - non one has made a Fortan compiler that can do Universal. You may be able to build the two part independently an use Lipo to put them together, however. Googling this list and the pythonmac one should get you some discussion of this, but AFAIK, no one has done it yet. If you do need to have your Fortran stuff separate, you can still make the rest of it Universal One problem is that PIL is a tricky beast, even in the neutered form that I'm using it. It does a compile-time check for the endian-ness of the system, and a compile-time search for the zlib to use, both of which are problematic. Well, I know it's possible to build Universal. There are binaries on pythonmac.org/packages. The folks on the pythonmac list should be able to tell you how. ( zlib is included with OS-X, so that shouldn't be an issue) To address the former, I'd like to be able to (say) include something like 'config_endian --big' on the 'python setup.py' command-line, and have that information trickle down to the PIL config script (a few subpackages deep). Is this easy or possible? I doubt it, but there has got to be a way to tie endianess to platform. You'd want the Intel code built one way, and the PPC code another. I think distutils may take care of this for you. Good luck! And if you find a way to build a universal Fortran extension -- be sure to let us know! -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/ORR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Questions about cross-compiling extensions for mac-ppc and mac-intel
Christopher Barker wrote: I'm no expert, but the glory of distutils is that it will, by default build extensions the same way as python itself was built. So if you use a PPC python, you'll get PPC extensions, same with Intel, and if you use a Universal Python, you'll get a Universal extension. There is a little wrinkle in that numpy configures itself by compiling and running small C programs to determine what is supported on its platform. When building on an Intel machine even with a Universal Python, the results of that configuration will only be for the system it was compiled on. Thus, even though Universal binaries built on 10.4 systems would usually work on 10.3.9, numpy doesn't. The trick is that while you can build Universal on either platform, you can't use this trick to build Intel extensions on a PPC mac, as the Python would have to be intel, and a PPC mac won't run an Intel Python. It may be possible to run a PPC Python on an Intel Mac with Rosettta, though. In any case, Universal is probably the best bet except for your Fortran code - non one has made a Fortan compiler that can do Universal. The R folks have a package containing gcc 4.0.3 with gfortran that looks like it might be Universal. I haven't tried to build scipy with it, yet. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Questions about cross-compiling extensions for mac-ppc and mac-intel
Robert Kern wrote: even though Universal binaries built on 10.4 systems would usually work on 10.3.9, numpy doesn't. Darn, but I for one, can live without 10.3.9 support -- it does build Universal properly for 10.4 doesn't it? The R folks have a package containing gcc 4.0.3 with gfortran that looks like it might be Universal. I haven't tried to build scipy with it, yet. cool! -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/ORR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Questions about cross-compiling extensions for mac-ppc and mac-intel
Christopher Barker wrote: Robert Kern wrote: even though Universal binaries built on 10.4 systems would usually work on 10.3.9, numpy doesn't. Darn, but I for one, can live without 10.3.9 support -- it does build Universal properly for 10.4 doesn't it? I've never tested it. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
[Numpy-discussion] Questions about cross-compiling extensions for mac-ppc and mac-intel
Hi folks,
I've been doing a lot of web-reading on the subject, but have not
been completely able to synthesize all of the disparate bits of
advice about building python extensions as Mac-PPC and Mac-Intel fat
binaries, so I'm turning to the wisdom of this list for a few questions.
My general goal is to make a double-clickable Mac installer of a set
of tools built around numpy, numpy's distutils, a very hacked-up
version of PIL, and some fortran code too. To this end, I need to
figure out how to get the numpy distutils to cross-compile,
generating PPC code and Intel code in separate builds -- and/or
generating a universal binary all in one go. (I'd like to distribute
a universal version of numpy, but I think that my own code needs to
be built/distributed separately for each architecture due to endian-
ness issues.)
Is there explicit support in distutils for this, or is it a matter of
setting the proper environment variables to entice gcc and gfortran
to generate code for a specific architecture?
One problem is that PIL is a tricky beast, even in the neutered form
that I'm using it. It does a compile-time check for the endian-ness
of the system, and a compile-time search for the zlib to use, both of
which are problematic.
To address the former, I'd like to be able to (say) include something
like 'config_endian --big' on the 'python setup.py' command-line, and
have that information trickle down to the PIL config script (a few
subpackages deep). Is this easy or possible?
To address the latter, I think I need to have the PIL extensions
dynamically link against '/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/lib/
libz.dylib' which is the fat-binary version of the library, using the
headers from '/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/include/zlib.h
'. Right now, PIL is using system_info from numpy.distutils to find
the valid library paths on which libz and its headers might live.
This is nice and more or less platform-neutral, which I like. How
best should I convince/configure numpy.distutils.system_info to put '/
Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/{lib,include}' on the output to
get_include_dirs() and get_lib_dirs()?
Thanks for any advice or counsel,
Zach Pincus
Program in Biomedical Informatics and Department of Biochemistry
Stanford University School of Medicine
___
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@scipy.org
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
