David Abrahams wrote:
> I just wanted to write to encourage some Python developers to look at
> (and accept!) Christoph's patch. This is really crucial for smooth
> interoperability between C++ and Python.
I did, and accepted the patch. If there is anything left to be done,
please submit another
Christoph Ludwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> this is to continue a discussion started back in July by a posting by
> Dave Abrahams http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/69651>
> regarding the compiler (C vs. C++) used to compile python's main() and to link
> the executable.
>
Hi,
this is to continue a discussion started back in July by a posting by
Dave Abrahams http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/69651>
regarding the compiler (C vs. C++) used to compile python's main() and to link
the executable.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:13:58PM +0200, Christoph Ludwi
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:11:56PM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I've looked at the patch, and it looks fairly safe, so I committed it.
Thanks. I did not forget my promise to look into a more comprehensive
approach to the C++ build issues. But I first need to better understand the
potential im
Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I should probably add that I'm not flagging that I think there's a problem
> here. I'm mostly urging caution - I hate having to cut brown-paper-bag
> releases . If possible, can the folks on c++-sig try this patch
> out and put their results in the patch discussion? If you'
> I prepared the patch for 2.4.2 since it is indeed a bugfix. The current
> test produces wrong results if the compiler is GCC 4.0 which inhibits a
> successful build of Python 2.4.
I should probably add that I'm not flagging that I think there's a problem
here. I'm mostly urging caution - I hate
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 04:01:20PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 20:13, Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> > I submitted patch #1239112 that implements the test involving two TUs for
> > Python 2.4. I plan to work on a more comprehensive patch for Python 2.5 but
> > that will take
On Saturday 16 July 2005 20:13, Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> I submitted patch #1239112 that implements the test involving two TUs for
> Python 2.4. I plan to work on a more comprehensive patch for Python 2.5 but
> that will take some time.
I'm only vaguely aware of all of the issues here with linkin
Christoph Ludwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I submitted patch #1239112 that implements the test involving two TUs for
> Python 2.4. I plan to work on a more comprehensive patch for Python 2.5 but
> that will take some time.
Thanks very much for your efforts, Christoph!
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 07:41:06PM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> > My point is: The test implemented in the 2.4.1 configure script gives a
> > wrong
> > result if your platform happens to be x86 Linux with ELF binaries and
> > g++ 4.0.
[...]
> > But I digress. It's
Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> You practically always have to use --compiler with distutils when
> building C++ extensions anyhow, and even then it rarely does what I
> would consider 'The Right Thing(tm)'.
I see. In that case, I think something should be done about distutils
as well (assuming somebod
On 7/12/05, Christoph Ludwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If distutils builds C++ extensions with the C compiler then I consider this a
> bug in distutils because it is unlikely to work. (Unless the compiler can
> figure out from the source file suffixes in the compilation step *and* some
> info in
Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> If I understood Dave Abraham's reply somewhere above in this thread correctly
> then you can build different C++ extension modules with different C++
> compilers on ELF/Linux. (I don't have the time right now to actually try it,
> sorry.) There is no need to fix the C++ co
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:07:56AM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> > Yes, but on ELF/Linux the default configuration should be --without-cxx
> > in the first place. If the build instructions make it sufficiently clear
> > that
> > you should prefer this configuration wh
Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> Yes, but on ELF/Linux the default configuration should be --without-cxx
> in the first place. If the build instructions make it sufficiently clear that
> you should prefer this configuration whenever possible then this should be a
> non-issue on platforms like ELF/Linux.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:35:33AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> Christoph Ludwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I do not claim the 2 TUs test will cover all possible scenarios. I am not
> > even
> > sure this decision should be left to an automated test. Because if the test
> > breaks for so
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:45:25AM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> >>I'll describe it once more: *If* a program is compiled with the C++
> >>compiler, is it *then* possible to still link it with the C compiler?
> >>This is the question this test tries to answer.
> >
> >
Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> My point is: The test implemented in the 2.4.1 configure script gives a wrong
> result if your platform happens to be x86 Linux with ELF binaries and
> g++ 4.0.
Point well taken.
>>It is only recent changes to g++ that break the test, namely the
>>introduction of this
--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christoph Ludwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I do not claim the 2 TUs test will cover all possible scenarios. I am not
> even
> > sure this decision should be left to an automated test. Because if the test
> > breaks for some reason then the u
Christoph Ludwig wrote:
>>I'll describe it once more: *If* a program is compiled with the C++
>>compiler, is it *then* possible to still link it with the C compiler?
>>This is the question this test tries to answer.
>
>
> The keyword here is "tries"
Any such test would only "try": to really dete
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:08:08AM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> >>When I looked into this problem I saw that configure in fact builds a test
> >>executable that included an object file compiled with g++. If the link step
> >>with gcc succeeds then LINKCC is set as above
--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, all the tests are passing that way.
>
> > (On ELF based Linux/x86, at least.) That leaves me wondering
> >
> > * when is --with-cxx really necessary?
>
> I think it's plausible that if you set sys.dlopenflags to share
> symbols it *might* end
22 matches
Mail list logo
