Problem with msvcrt60 vs. msvcr71 vs. strdup/free

Scott David Daniels Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org
Thu Dec 23 02:45:36 CET 2004

abkhd at wrote:
> And so I suspect this approach (compiling sources yourself) can shield
> people from this ugly mess, if they can build Python 2.4 and the
> extensions and have them (core and extension) use one and the same
> run-time library. But indeed this might be an issue for those who [1]
> use MinGW as their first choice and [2] cannot or won't bother to build
> their Python and/or extensions from sources, and hence have to rely on
> binary distributions.

I encourage anyone who gets further into solving the "How do I use
MinGW to build Python2.4 (and later) standard-distribution compatible
modules (.pyd s)?" question to share any clues they have.  The MS
free compiler is useful to many, but not all of us.

I expect that MinGW is the most frequent choice for making Python
modules in the "free compiler outside of MS" universe.  Let's make
that one work well, and (once we've done that) we can pass the lessons
on for other compiler is desired.

--Scott David Daniels
Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org

p.s. I am able (and willing) to use the MS free compiler, but I have
   sympathy for those who aren't.  I'd like to see it possible to use
   _lots_ of different compilers, but we are at the beginning of the
   problem, not the end.  If Intel's compiler is as much faster than
   MS's as it used to be, I may eventually wind up using theirs anyway.

More information about the Python-list mailing list