RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jul 16 15:53:53 CEST 2010 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-July/101992.html

On 16.07.2010 15:43, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Matthias Klose<doko at ubuntu.com>  wrote:
>
>>   2) As PEP 3147 defines a non-configurable name for .pyc files, this PEP
>>      should define a non-configurable way for the tag. The tag should
>>      include all information which currently makes an extension ABI
>>      incompatible:
>>       - the python implementation (cpython, PyPy, ...)
>>       - the python version (3,2, 3.3, ...)
>>       - unicode configure option (--with-wide-unicode, 16 or 32)
>>       - platform information (necessary?)
>
>
> I'm not sure it's that easy to enumerate all of the ways to end up with an
> incompatible ABI.  There are quite a lot of configure options listed with
> "configure --help", and it's not always obvious if an option changes the
> ABI.  On top of that, there are compilation flags that can change the ABI,
> as Kristján discovered in the following thread:

right, I forgot about the debug builds, because it's already the standard on 
windows to build foo_d.so extensions, and I adopted it for Debian/Ubuntu too.

> On the flip side, a fully enumerated ABI signature could be used to identify
> (in)compatible binary eggs, which is basically impossible now.

indeed.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-July/101992.html below:

[Python-Dev] versioned .so files for Python 3.2