On 26/10/2014 00:24, R. David Murray wrote: > On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:19:44 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:06:36 +1100 >> Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: >>>> How do you know this isn't a problem, since you haven't *tested* with >>>> MSVC? >>>> Why on Earth would you want to test your PEP work with an unsupported >>>> Windows compiler and runtime, rather than with the officially supported >>>> compiler and runtime? >>> >>> This discussion revolved around supporting MinGW in addition to MSVC. >>> If it had been supported when I was doing that, I could have spun >>> myself up a Windows build and tested it. >> >> My point is that your "Windows build" would not have the same behaviour >> as a MSVC-produced Windows build, and so testing it with it would not >> certify that your code would actually be compatible with genuine >> MSVC builds of CPython, which we will not stop supporting. > > While true, I don't think that matters for Chris' point. Given only the > ability to build with the MSVC toolchain, his code (which might even be > pure python for the purposes of this discussion) would not get tested on > Windows until committed and run by the buildbots. If he could build > CPython using MinGW, he would, and would test his code on Windows. Even > if there are C components and MSVC/MinGW compatibility issues are > revealed when the buildbots eventually run the code, still the number of > bugs present would probably be lower if he had tested it on Windows > than if he hadn't. > > I know I for one do not generally test patches on Windows because I > haven't taken the time to learn how to build CPython on it. Sure, I > could test pure python changes by applying patches to an installed > Python, but that's an ongoing pain and I'd rather learn to build CPython > on Windows and get to use the normal hg tools. > > If I could use a more linux-like toolchain to build CPython on windows, > I would doubtless do much more testing on windows for stuff where I > think windows might behave differently (and I might look at more Windows > bugs...though frankly there are plenty of bugs for me to look at without > looking at Windows bugs). > > This is not necessarily a compelling argument for MinGW support. > However, it *is* a valid argument, IMO. > > Note: it can be made even less compelling by making it a lot easier to > build CPython on Windows without having an MSVC license (which I think > means not using the GUI, for which I say *yay* :). I think Zach Ware > has been working on improving the Windows build process, and I keep > meaning to give it a try... > > --David > MSVC Express Edition 2010 works perfectly for building 3.5 so no license needed. Links to older versions have been pointed out on other threads, either here or python-ideas, maybe both? Or use the command line as Antoine pointed out elsewhere. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
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