On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM, David Cournapeau <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Ralf Gommers > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:02 PM, David Cournapeau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of > >> compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern > >> the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in > >> progress. > >> > >> Basically, the pros: > >> - we will have to move at some point > >> - gcc 4.* seem less buggy, especially C++ and fortran. > >> - no need to maintain msvcr90 vodoo > >> The cons: > >> - it will most likely break the ABI > >> - we need to recompile atlas (but I can take care of it) > >> - the biggest: it is difficult to combine gfortran with visual > >> studio (more exactly you cannot link gfortran runtime to a visual > >> studio executable). The only solution I could think of would be to > >> recompile the gfortran runtime with Visual Studio, which for some > >> reason does not sound very appealing :) > > > > To get the datetime changes to work with MinGW, we already concluded that > > building with 4.x is more or less required (without recognizing some of > the > > points you list above). Changes to mingw32ccompiler to fix compilation > with > > 4.x went in in https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/156. It would be > good if > > you could check those. > > I will look into it more carefully, but overall, it seems that > building atlas 3.8.4, numpy and scipy with gcc 4.x works quite well. > The main issue is that gcc 4.* adds some dependencies on mingw dlls. > There are two options: > - adding the dlls in the installers > - statically linking those, which seems to be a bad idea > (generalizing the dll boundaries problem to exception and things we > would rather not care about: > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-06/msg00332.html). > > > It probably makes sense make this move for numpy 1.7. If this breaks the > ABI > > then it would be easiest to make numpy 1.7 the minimum required version > for > > scipy 0.11. > > My thinking as well. > > Hi David, what is the current status of this issue? I kind of forgot this is a prerequisite for the next release when starting the 1.7.0 release thread. Thanks, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
