[Python-Dev] compiling python2.5 on linux under wine

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Simon Cross
<hodgestar+pythondev at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>> secondly, i want a python25.lib which i can use to cross-compile
>> modules for poor windows users _despite_ sticking to my principles and
>> keeping my integrity as a free software developer.
>
> If this eventually leads to being able to compile Python software for
> Windows under Wine (using for example, py2exe) it would make my life a
> lot easier.

 that looks like being an accidental side-effect, yes.

 where i'm up to so far:

 * i'm using -I $(src_dir)/PC at the beginning of the includes, so
that PC/pyconfig.h gets pulled in as a priority over-and-above the
auto-generated pyconfig.h (yukkk - i know); this makes the job of
building almost-exactly-like-the-visual-studio-build much easier.

 * i'm manually compiling-linking the Modules/*.c and PC/*modules.c as
i also pulled in PC/config.c and left out Modules/config.c - that got
me even further

 * as a result i've actually got a python.exe.so that.... damnit, it
works!  the winreg test actually passes for example!

the fly in the ointment i'm presently trying to track down: len([1,2])
returns 1L which of course screws up sre_parse.py at line 515 with
"TypeError: __nonzero__ should return an int" because duh "if
subpattern" is returning a Long not an Int.

tracking this down further, it would appear that there's some lovely
logic in PyInt_FromSsize_t() which i believe is what's getting called
from PyInt_AsSsize_t() which is what's getting called from
slot_sq_length() (i think) - and, although in this case this build is
_definitely_ returning a Long type when it shouldn't, if the value is
ever over LONG_MAX then the result will be "if subpattern" will
definitely fail.

but... i mean... if ever anyone passes in over 2^^31 items into
sre_parse then they _deserve_ to have their code fail, but that's not
the point.

anyway, i'm floundering around a bit and making a bit of a mess of the
code, looking for where LONG_MAX is messing up.

l.

which of course means that there's a bug in