Please contact robert.s.c...@intel.com if you want a free license to intel
compilers or tools.
From: "M.-A. Lemburg" mailto:m...@egenix.com>>
Ø BTW: I remember there was some discussion a while ago to get ICC licenses to
core devs. Has there been any progress
on this ?
_
Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Steve Dower
> wrote:
>> This also makes it more viable to use the Windows SDK compilers. If you
>> install the Windows SDK 7.0 (which includes MSVC9) and Windows SDK 7.1 (which
>> includes the platform toolset files for MSVC9 - toolsets were
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
> This also makes it more viable to use the Windows SDK compilers. If you
> install the Windows SDK 7.0 (which includes MSVC9) and Windows SDK 7.1 (which
> includes the platform toolset files for MSVC9 - toolsets were invented later
> than th
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 25.06.2015 17:12, Zachary Ware wrote:
>> The old files are moved to PC/VS9.0, and they work as expected as far
>> as I've tested them.
>
> So it's still possible to build with "just" VS 2008 installed
> or will the VS 2010 (or later) be re
On 25.06.2015 17:12, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 22.06.2015 19:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
>>> Using the backported project files to build 2.7 would require two
>>> versions of Visual Studio to be installed; VS2010 (or newer) would be
>>> required
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> For VS 2008 we now have a long-term solution thanks to MS.
Without the change to the project files, the compiler at
http://aka.ms/vcpython27 isn't sufficient to build Python itself. In theory,
with even more patching to the projects (or otherwise making up for the fact
th
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 22.06.2015 19:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
>> Using the backported project files to build 2.7 would require two
>> versions of Visual Studio to be installed; VS2010 (or newer) would be
>> required in addition to VS2008. All Windows core develo
On 22.06.2015 19:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you may know, Steve Dower put significant effort into rewriting the
> project files used by the Windows build as part of moving to VC14 as
> the official compiler for Python 3.5. Compared to the project files
> for 3.4 (and older), the new pro
On Jun 23, 2015, at 06:27, Christian Tismer wrote:
> On 23.06.15 06:42, Zachary Ware wrote:
>> Christian, what say you? Would having the project files from 3.5
>> backported to 2.7 (but still using MSVC 9) be positive, negative, or
>> indifferent for Stackless?
>
> I am very positive about your e
Hi Zack,
On 23.06.15 06:42, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> I'd suggest explicitly reaching out to the Stackless folks to get
>> their feedback. As I believe the switched to a newer compiler and VC
>> runtime for Windows a while back, I suspect it wi
On 22/06/2015 18:03, Zachary Ware wrote:
> As you may know, Steve Dower put significant effort into rewriting the
> project files used by the Windows build as part of moving to VC14 as
> the official compiler for Python 3.5. Compared to the project files
> for 3.4 (and older), the new project file
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I'd suggest explicitly reaching out to the Stackless folks to get
> their feedback. As I believe the switched to a newer compiler and VC
> runtime for Windows a while back, I suspect it will make their lives
> easier rather than harder, but i
On 23 June 2015 at 11:45, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>>> I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
>>
>> Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
>>
>> There is now the "ms compiler for 2.7" would that w
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
>> I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
>
> Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
>
> There is now the "ms compiler for 2.7" would that work? Or only in
> concert with VS2010 express?
It shoul
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
> Zachary Ware wrote:
>> With the stipulation that the officially supported compiler won't change, I
>> want
>> to make sure there's no major opposition to replacing the old project files
>> in
>> PCbuild. The old files would move to PC\VS9.0,
> I'd like to backport those new project files to 2.7,
Would this change anything about how extensions are built?
There is now the "ms compiler for 2.7" would that work? Or only in
concert with VS2010 express?
-CHB
> and Intel is
> willing to fund that work as part of making Python ICC compilab
Zachary Ware wrote:
> With the stipulation that the officially supported compiler won't change, I
> want
> to make sure there's no major opposition to replacing the old project files in
> PCbuild. The old files would move to PC\VS9.0, so they'll still be available
> and
> usable if necessary.
I'
Updating the build system to better handle changes in underlying platforms
is one of the "standard exemptions" arising from Python 2.7's long term
support status, so if this change makes things easier for contributors on
Windows, +1 from me.
Cheers,
Nick.
__
Hi,
As you may know, Steve Dower put significant effort into rewriting the
project files used by the Windows build as part of moving to VC14 as
the official compiler for Python 3.5. Compared to the project files
for 3.4 (and older), the new project files are smaller, cleaner,
simpler, more easily
19 matches
Mail list logo
