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++ compiler as soon as python is built. There is, somewhat: how do you know the name of the C++ compiler? > 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 the object files in the linking step that it is supposed to act like a > C++ compiler. None of the compilers I am familiar with does the latter.) > distutils should rather look for a C++ compiler in the PATH or explicitly ask > the user to specify the command that calls the C++ compiler. How should it do that? The logic is quite involved, and currently, distutils relies on configure to figure it out. If you think this should be changed, please contribute a patch. > (distutils does not behave correctly when building C++ extensions anyway. It > calls the C compiler to compile the C++ source files and passes options that > gcc accepts only in C mode. The compiler version I am using is docile and only > issues warnings. But these warnings are unnecessary and and I would not blame > gcc if the next compiler release refused to compile C++ sources if the command > line contains C specific options. But the distutils mailing list is a better > place to bring this eventually up, I guess.) The best way to "bring this up" is to contribute a patch. "Bringing it up" in the sense of sending an email message to some mailing list likely has no effect whatsoever. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4