I am curious if there are any plans to support
the functionality provided by lipo on MacOS X to
create a python release that could operate at either
32-bit or 64-bit on Darwin ppc and Darwin intel? My
understanding was that the linux developers are very
interested in lipo as well as an
On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I am curious if there are any plans to support
the functionality provided by lipo on MacOS X to
create a python release that could operate at either
32-bit or 64-bit on Darwin ppc and Darwin intel?
We already support universal binaries for
Ronald Oussoren schrieb:
One problem is that python's configure script detects the sizes of
various types and those values will be different on 32-bit and 64-bit
flavours.
FWIW, the PC build solves this problem by providing a hand-crafted
pyconfig.h file, instead of using an autoconf-generated
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity: how do the current universal binaries deal with this
issue?
If I remember correctly, usually you do two completely independant
compile runs (optionally on the same machine with different configure or
macro definitions, then use a
Josiah Carlson schrieb:
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity: how do the current universal binaries deal with this
issue?
If I remember correctly, usually you do two completely independant
compile runs (optionally on the same machine with different configure or
macro
On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:03 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity: how do the current universal binaries deal with
this
issue?
If I remember correctly, usually you do two completely independant
compile runs (optionally on the same machine with
On 9/17/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson schrieb:
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity: how do the current universal binaries deal with this
issue?
If I remember correctly, usually you do two completely independant
compile runs
On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Josiah Carlson schrieb:
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity: how do the current universal binaries deal with
this
issue?
If I remember correctly, usually you do two completely independant
compile runs (optionally
Ronald Oussoren schrieb:
The sizes of basic types are the same on PPC32 and x86 which helps a
lot.
Ah, right. This was the missing piece of the puzzle.
The byteorder is different, but we can use GCC feature checks
there. The relevant bit of pyconfig.h.in:
#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN__
#define
On Sep 17, 2006, at 8:56 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
One of the announced features of osx 10.5 is 64-bit support
throughout
the system and I definitely want to see if we can get 4-way universal
support on such systems. As I don't have a system that is capable of
running 64-bit code I'm not
Just wondering: is it a good idea in the first place to create a
universal 32/64 bit Python on MacOSX?
On MacOS you don't pay a penalty or anything for running in 32-bit
mode on any current hardware, so the choice of whether to use 32 or
64 bits really depends on the application. A single
Martin,
I believe if you use the Xcode project management the
Universal binary creation is automated. Currently they
support the i386/ppc binaries but once Leopard comes
out you will see i386/x86_64/ppc/ppc64 binaries for
shared libraries.
Jack
On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:29 PM, Jack Jansen wrote:
Just wondering: is it a good idea in the first place to create a
universal 32/64 bit Python on MacOSX?
On MacOS you don't pay a penalty or anything for running in 32-bit
mode on any current hardware, so the choice of whether to use 32 or
64 bits
On Sep 17, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Martin,
I believe if you use the Xcode project management the
Universal binary creation is automated. Currently they
support the i386/ppc binaries but once Leopard comes
out you will see i386/x86_64/ppc/ppc64 binaries for
shared libraries.
Jack Jansen schrieb:
Just wondering: is it a good idea in the first place to create a
universal 32/64 bit Python on MacOSX?
I wonder about the same thing.
For extension modules it's different, though: there it would be nice
to be able to have a single module that could load into any
Ronald Oussoren schrieb:
BTW. several sites on the interweb claim that x86-64 runs faster than
plain x86 due to a larger register set. All my machines are 32-bit so I
can't check if this is relevant for Python (let alone Python on OSX).
That is plausible. OTOH, the AMD64 binaries will often
16 matches
Mail list logo
