A RetroSearch Logo

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

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098078.html below:

[Python-Dev] Packaging JIT-less versions of Python

[Python-Dev] Packaging JIT-less versions of Python [Python-Dev] Packaging JIT-less versions of PythonCollin Winter collinwinter at google.com
Tue Mar 2 00:35:15 CET 2010
Hey packaging guys,

We recently committed a change to Unladen Swallow [1] that moves all
the JIT infrastructure into a Python extension module. The theory [2]
behind this patch was that this would make it easier for downstream
packagers to ship a JIT-less Python package, with the JIT compiler
available via an optional add-on package.

Some questions for you, so we're not shooting blind here:
- Have you guys thought about how a JIT-enabled Python 3 installation
would be packaged by your respective distros?
- Would you prefer the default python3.x package to have a JIT, or
would you omit the JIT by default?
- How would you prefer to build the JIT-less package (current options:
via a ./configure flag; or by deleting _llvmjit.so from the
JIT-enabled package)?
- Would the two packages be able to exist side-by-side, or would they
be mutually exclusive?

My strong preference would be to have the JIT included by default so
that it receives as much testing as possible.

Thanks,
Collin Winter

[1] - http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/source/detail?r=1110
[2] - http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/issues/detail?id=136
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

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