| msg136034 - (view) |
Author: Benjamin Peterson (benjamin.peterson) *  |
Date: 2011-05-15 15:37 |
| I believe the bugs which the patched version of libffi used have been fixed in recent versions. We should stop distributing an old version. |
|
|
| msg136035 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2011-05-15 15:59 |
| Sounds reasonable. How will this work on Windows? |
|
|
| msg136049 - (view) |
Author: Roumen Petrov (rpetrov) * |
Date: 2011-05-15 20:21 |
| On windows work with patched version of library . Unpatched does not work but I cannot remember python issue number. |
|
|
| msg136050 - (view) |
Author: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (Arfrever) *  |
Date: 2011-05-15 20:24 |
| Has the patch been sent to libffi upstream? What was the response from libffi upstream? |
|
|
| msg136659 - (view) |
Author: Matthias Klose (doko) * |
Date: 2011-05-23 15:08 |
| iirc after merging 3.0.9, we still had to use the internal libffi bits for windows and macosx. I didn't check 3.0.10rc8 |
|
|
| msg158313 - (view) |
Author: Ross Lagerwall (rosslagerwall) |
Date: 2012-04-15 06:53 |
| In any case, it should be OK to remove libffi_arm_wince? Is WinCE supported? |
|
|
| msg158325 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-04-15 12:45 |
| I don't think we have ever "supported" WinCE (which is apparently named "Windows Embedded Compact 7" nowadays). It only provides a subset of the Win32 API so the current tree may not even compile. |
|
|
| msg158430 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2012-04-16 12:58 |
| Arfrever: I doubt anybody has contributed patches back, or that anybody is interested in doing so. I personally don't see a problem in using an old libffi version, so I fail to see Benjamin's issue. Figuring out how exactly to use the system libffi is more hassle than keeping our own copy. Please understand that ctypes is unmaintained. Anybody actively taking over maintenance of ctypes would have to decide on how integration with libffi is supposed to work. Without a maintainer, falling back to the sytem libffi is a too high risk, IMO, since this will certainly produce tons of new bug reports, with nobody prepared to deal with them. |
|
|
| msg158544 - (view) |
Author: Matthias Klose (doko) * |
Date: 2012-04-17 11:18 |
| The last time I merged libffi, we were not able to build the MacOS X and Windows libffi from the upstream sources, but used the internal copy of the copy. Now that libffi 3.0.11 is released, we could - update to this new version, see if the MacOS X and Windows builds work (there are upstream related changes) - start defaulting to the system libffi for at least some targets (e.g. linux), for which we know that almost nobody will use the internal copy No, I don't volunteer to maintain ctypes itself. |
|
|
| msg165027 - (view) |
Author: Meador Inge (meador.inge) * |
Date: 2012-07-08 17:24 |
| Matthias recently updated libffi to 3.0.11 (). It would seem that we intend to keep a local copy of the libffi sources for now and that this issue can be closed. Does anyone see a reason to keep this open? |
|
|
| msg165029 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2012-07-08 17:39 |
| Closing as a duplicate. The original issue is resolved: we are not distributing an old copy of libffi anymore. |
|
|