John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
s390 is a 31-bit platform, not a 32-bit platform.
I also don't see what this change achieves other than making the use of Python
3.10 on s390 harder.
It's not like the removal of support for non-threaded builds which actually
saved
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> I want to make it obvious that the platform has been dropped half a decade
> ago.
That's a political statement, not a technical one.
The change has zero functional impact on the other targets. It just makes the
use of Python in
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> Moving forward, s390 will be unambiguously unsupported as we cannot test
> against this platform. Unless we get a buildbot provided for this purpose,
> as well as somebody willing to fix broken builds on that buildbot long-term,
>
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> The guidelines for platform support are explained in PEP 11
> (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/#supporting-platforms). We don't
> support platforms unless we have maintainers and CI (builtbots) in place for
> the pla
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> So IMO it's fine to remove the support.
You are not removing "support". You're just disallowing users to use the Python
interpreter - which works perfectly fine on all architectures we have in
current and previous relea
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> This thread is an excellent example why ignoring platforms comes at a cost.
> It will only get worse when are going to introduce platform and architecture
> specific code for optimizations and features.
Which is purely hypothetic
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> Are you sure about that? It seems SLE-12 support s390x not s390. Maybe it's
> multilib support in a similar manner that I've mentioned about RHEL7?
I work at SUSE. I looked at the internal build system. Debian also still buil
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> What is the use case or benefit of building Python for 32-bit rather than
> 64-bit?
That's not really the question. The question is whether an upstream project
should prevent downstreams from using unsupported target configurations a
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> To get a platform supported by Python, we also need a volunteer to fix issues
> specific to the 31 bit s390 platform: see PEP 11.
You do not need to support every platform. Just allow your users to use them.
If something breaks downstrea
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> But I don't see the benefit of annoying and discouraging users who want to
> experiment with Python and with Linux on Z in 31 bit mode.
Fully agree.
> Yes, maintenance theoretically is a burden, but there have been no recent
>
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
> "Move support of legacy platforms/architectures outside Python"
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-...@python.org/thread/F5BXISYP7RAINXUMYJSEYG7GCFRFAENF/
Motorola 68k isn't a 16-bit architecture, it's a 32-
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz added the comment:
Oh, and LLVM is currently gaining support M68k which you consider "legacy":
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D95315
It might be a good idea to do some research first before making su
New submission from Paul van der Linden :
The attached python file will give the following output, which is
incorrect behavior as far as I know:
"
this will fail
failed local variable 'in_std' referenced before assignment
this won't fail
Not failed
this won't fail eit
3201 - 3213 of 3213 matches
Mail list logo
