[Pythonmac-SIG] Regarding universal python framework....
ronaldoussoren at mac.com
Wed Jan 31 09:14:12 CET 2007
On 30 Jan, 2007, at 23:13, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Hi all,
> I had a question/comment from a numpy/Scipy developer that I was asked
> to forward on:
>>> To get the "definition" of "universal" I went to
>>> the last paragraph says:
>>> Apple's Xcode 2.4 takes the concept of universal binaries even
>>> further, by allowing four-architecture binaries to be created (32
>>> 64 bit for both Intel and PowerPC), therefore allowing a single
>>> executable to take full advantage of the CPU capabilities of any Mac
>>> OS X machine
> What are folk's thoughts on building "quad binary" universal builds in
> the future? Is there much point? Are there any 64bit Intel Macs? What
> difference might a 64bit build make on a G5?
I'd love to see a 4-way universal build of python, but mostly just
because of the coolness factor not that I really need it. As Bob
noted this isn't as simple as turning on extra CFLAGS and I don't
have time to work on this for the forseeable future.
With a 4-way universal build I'd make the framework itself 4-way
universal and have two sets of python interpreters: "python/
python2.5" and "python-64/python2.5-64". That way users can
explicitly choose if they want to use a 64-bit build. This is a hard
requirement for Tiger because of the severe limitations on the API's
you can use there in 64-bit mode, but even on Leopard 64-bit is not
always the right choice.
More information about the Pythonmac-SIG