[Pythonmac-SIG] Regarding universal python framework....

[Christopher Barker]

Thanks Bob,

We can always count on you for having useful ideas about all sorts of stuff.

It does sound like a quad binary wouldn't be a good idea.

> For intel it's probably a bit different because there's more registers
> and whatnot in 64-bit mode... so it may actually be an overall
> performance win for machines that can do it.
> 
> I think all Core 2 Duo machines are x86-64 capable.

Isn't that all Intel Macs?

> The problem with a quad binary build is that there's a lot more
> difference between 32-bit and 64-bit than there is from PPC and Intel.

Wow! that's a surprise to me. I suppose there are a LOT of 32 bit 
assumptions built into  a lot of code.

> It would be a lot of work to make that happen. It would also end up in
> pain because I believe that a 64-bit machine would default to using
> the 64-bit version of the executable which wouldn't be compatible with
> any existing extensions.

Would setup.py build Universal extensions right (if the extension was 
written to support 64 bit)?

> It would make a lot of sense to have a 64-bit python distribution that
> was built for x86-64 and ppc64...

Hmm. I like that idea. Now we just need a bunch of people to find the 
time.....

-Chris





-- 
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

Chris.Barker at noaa.gov