[Numpy-discussion] 64bit infrastructure
Wed Aug 22 09:35:29 CDT 2012
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:28 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Travis Oliphant <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:59 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Travis Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> I'm actually not sure, why. I think the issue is making sure that the
>>> release manager can actually "build" NumPy without having to buy a
>>> particular compiler.
>> That would help, yes. MS Express doesn't work under Wine last time I checked
>> by the way.
>> However, the issue is more than just one license. There's a large number of
>> packages that depend on numpy and provide binaries. If they can't make those
>> compatible with numpy ones, that's a problem. Users will first install numpy
>> 64-bit, and then later find out that part of the scientific Python stack
>> isn't available to them anymore.
>> As far as I understand, you don't *have* to build all downstream
>> dependencies with the same compiler that NumPy was built with unless your
>> extension relies on the way C-functions pass structures on the stack (not
>> pointers to them, but structures as a whole) or if it relies on the
>> representation of FILE*. At one time all structures were passed as
>> pointers specifically for this reason. The FILE* situation is a problem,
>> but most extensions don't use NumPy C-API calls that have a FILE* argument.
> It is much more pervasive than that, unfortunately. And for fortran,
> it is much worse, because if we build scipy or numpy with Intel
> Fortran, I think we pretty much force everyone to use intel fortran
> for *any* binary on top of them.
Can you be more specific? Does the calling convention for C-routines created with Intel Fortran differ so much?
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion