(original) (raw)

On 22 Nov 2013 10:58, "Steve Dower" <Steve.Dower@microsoft.com> wrote:
\>
\> Nick Coghlan wrote:
\> > For 2.7.7, I think some combination of the two following ideas would be worth
\> > pursuing:
\> > - a C runtime independent API flag (set by default on Windows when building with
\> > a compiler other than VS2008). This would largely be a backport of some of the
\> > stable ABI work from Python 3.
\> > - getting Windows closer to the current Mac OS X situation by ensuring that the
\> > C runtime used directly affects the ABI flags and shared library names. PyPI
\> > would apply the Mac OS X guideline where extensions are expected to be
\> > compatible with the python.org binaries.
\>
\> I don't really think either of these are necessary. With some changes to Python's headers and some extra exports, it should be possible to future-proof Python 2.7.7 against any new compilers, at least on Windows.

>

> What I have in mind is basically detecting the MSVC version in the headers (there are preprocessor variables for this) and, if it isn't VC9, substituting a different function for those that require FILE*. This function/macro could call _get_osfhandle() and pass it to an API (built into python27.dll) that calls _open_osfhandle() and forwards it to the usual API.

>

> This should let any compiler be used for building extensions or hosting python27.dll without affecting existing code or requiring changes to the packages.

>

> > This would be the biggest change pushed through under the "make builds work"

> > policy for the extended 2.7 lifecycle, but Microsoft's aggressive approach to

> > deprecating old compilers and C runtimes means I think we don't have much

> > choice.

>

> Ultimately, compilers are probably going to be deprecated more quickly now that we're on a faster release cadence, which makes it more important that Python 2.7 is prepared for an unknown future.

>

> > In the near term, if Stackless build to a different DLL name under VS2010 and

> > make it clear to their users that extension compatibility issues are possible

> > (or even likely) if they aren't rebuilt from source, then I think that would be

> > compatible with the above proposal for a way forward.

> > Then we'd just need some volunteers to write and implement a PEP or two :)

>

> I'm happy to work on a PEP and changes for what I described above, if there's enough interest? I can also update distutils to detect and build with any available compiler, though this may be more of a feature than we'd want for 2.7 at this point.

That's part of what a PEP can help us decide, though, so if you're willing to put one together, that would be great :)

Cheers,
Nick.

>
\> Cheers,
\> Steve
\>
\> > (Note, similar to the Mac OS X situation, I think we should do this without
\> > hosting any new interpreter variants on python.org - VS2010 and VS2013 source
\> > builds would become separate build-from-source ecosystems for extensions, using
\> > sdists on PyPI as the default distribution mechanism)