This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin Python 2.1, Numeric package, exporting init<module> methods
- To: "Jason Tishler" <Jason dot Tishler at dothill dot com>
- Subject: Re: Cygwin Python 2.1, Numeric package, exporting init<module> methods
- From: "Mark Hadfield" <m dot hadfield at niwa dot cri dot nz>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:42:19 +1200
- Cc: "Norman Vine" <nhv at cape dot com>, "Robert Yodlowski" <RYodlowski at Pirus dot com>, "Cygwin Mailing List" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Organization: NIWA
- References: <007c01c0d0fd$ff878a30$d938a8c0@Hadfield> <20010430103616.D593@dothill.com>
From: "Jason Tishler" <Jason.Tishler@dothill.com>
> IMO, submitting a patch to the Numpy maintainers using the DL_EXPORT
> macro approach is the way to go. This is the approach that I used
> successfully for numerous standard Python modules. See the following
> for Tim Peters assessment of this approach:
If this is to be the "standard" approach, then that's fine. I guess it
should be documented in "Extending Python"?
The alternative is changing the compilation & linking process to generate &
use .def files. Norman Vine reported to me yesterday that he could build
Numpy without the DL_EXPORT macros. When we compared notes it turned out
that he was using a modified version of distutils. Basically Norman's
approach is to build with the "cygwin" compiler option:
python setup.py --compiler=cygwin
and the distutils patch is attached below my sig. I think it's fairly
> Why don't you try the Numpy maintainers and see what they have to say?
> Since they already support a Win32 port, I can't imagine much resistance
> on their part.
I'd be glad to do that but first I would like a ruling from the
Cygwin-Python gods about which of these approaches is the
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple