[Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

Daniele Nicolodi daniele at grinta.net
Thu Oct 8 06:44:24 EDT 2015


sorry for replying in the wrong thread, but I don't find an appropriate
message to reply to in the original one.

On 08/10/15 09:10, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hiding symbols is the only advantage that I'm aware of, and as noted
> in the other thread there do exist other solutions.

Indeed, and those are way easier than maintaining the single file build.

> The only thing is
> that we can't be absolutely certain these tools will work until
> someone who needs static builds actually tries it -- the tools
> definitely exist on regular linux, but IIUC the people who need static
> builds are generally on really weird architectures that we can't test
> ourselves. Or for all I know the weird architectures have finally
> added shared linking and no-one uses static builds anymore. I think we
> need to just try dropping it and see.

I don't really see how building from a single source file or multiple
source files affects the linking of a static library. Can you be more
precise about what the problems are?  The only thing that I may think of
is instructing distutils to do the right thing, but that should not be a


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list