First off, let me say that this is very cool! On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Anthony Scopatz <scop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: >> >> [Crossing over to cython-devel to discuss further development] >> >> Wow, my first impression is this looks great! > > > Thanks Dag! > >> >> It's a shame that clang wasn't able to give a good enough parse tree for >> templates > > > Yeah, this was pretty infuriating since it is the last part of a visitor > pattern that you write. To be clear though, this wouldn't be super hard for > them to expose it would just take some work and then some effort to get the > Clang people to merge these changes back into their mainline. They are open > to this kind of activity and Eli has a great blog post describing the > process in brutal detail [1]. I just personally don't have time to go down > this road.
In the long run, I think this will be a good option, but don't have the time to do it myself either... >> Is gcc-xml still a fork of a really old gcc? > > Hmm, now that you mention it, I am not sure. The website gives conflicting > information on how much of an extension / plugin it is. However, gccxml > does support gcc 4.7 so it can't be that old. > >> >> Did you look into the code using the gcc plugin architecture that Phillip >> Heron worked on in the GSoC last year for this? > > > No, I didn't even know about it! Though pxd generation is only part of what > xdress does, it will be good to look at. This is much more complete than that GSoC project ever got. Probably the biggest takeaway there was that gcc's plugin architecture, let alone the Python bindings, simply weren't stable or complete enough to seriously use (at that point at least). - Robert _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
