[Python-Dev] Python 2.4 extensions require VC 7.1?
Gregory P. Smith
greg at electricrain.com
Sat Jun 17 22:09:50 CEST 2006
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 03:27:36PM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> Scott Dial wrote:
> >> For fopen(3), you are right. For signal(3), VS2005 is in clear
> >> violation with ISO C
> > I'm nobody but I don't find your argument compelling. I suggest you go
> > read: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ksazx244.aspx
> > In short, you can tell the CRT to do whatever you like when the
> > parameters are invalid, including returning EINVAL.
> Sure, I can *make* the library conform to C 99. I could also write
> my own C library entirely to achieve that effect. The fact remains
> that VS 2005 violates standard C where VS 2003 and earlier did not:
> A conforming program will abort, instead of completing successfully.
A note from the sidelines on this:
Don't assume microsoft is ever going to "fix" their compilers. C and
modern C standards are not an important to them. MS is large enough
that they can choose not to conform or break from the standards and
you'll just have to live with it. MS uses C++ and C# for everything
internally so they have little internal incentive.
> > I went back and read more of the older discussion. And I think your
> > position is that you just don't want to force another compiler on
> > people,
> That also, yes.
> > but aren't developers used to this?
> They can manage, sure, nobody will get injured. However, since somebody
> will be unhappy no matter what I do, I do what makes most people happy,
> i.e. no change.
> Also, I'm really upset by Microsoft's attitude towards their C compiler.
> They shouldn't have broken the C library like that, and they shouldn't
> have taken the VS Express 2003 release off the net without any prior
Agreed. Regardless, I don't see this as something that the world
being pissed off at them can control. There are other C compilers for
Windows if you don't want to be at their mercy.
More information about the Python-Dev