Bugs item #1464444, was opened at 2006-04-04 21:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by theller You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1464444&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Extension Modules Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Matthias Klose (doko) Assigned to: Thomas Heller (theller) Summary: ctypes should be able to link with installed libffi Initial Comment: ctypes always uses the included libffi implementation (which should be updated to current GCC HEAD). Pleae add an option to build and link against a libffi, which is installed on the system. attached is a hack to just always build using the installed libffi. I'm unsure how to find the correct ffi implementation (maybe check for LIBFFI_H defined in the ffi header?), and where to implement this check (configure.ac --with-system-ffi=/usr?). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Thomas Heller (theller) Date: 2006-04-06 21:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11105 I tried your patch on an AMD64 ubuntu 5.10, after I installed the 4.0.1-4ubuntu9 libffi package. It crashes in ctypes/test/test_python_api.py, test_PyOS_snprintf. IIRC, libffi did not support varargs functions, but Andreas Degert added support for them (for x86_64), and it works fine. Ok, new features in libffi might not be the norm, but I see no way how I can check whether a system-installed libffi supports this feature or not. Do *you* see a solution for that? For the actual changes to setup.py, if the patch really is a good idea: Since I don't even know what a convience library is I'll trust you fully that your patch does the right thing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthias Klose (doko) Date: 2006-04-06 15:12 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=60903 > do any of the buildbot slaves have a system libffi > installed? the Debian and Ubuntu bots have libffi from gcc-4.1 installed. I think in the past, there was a complaint about a conflicting ffi.h, or maybe was this ffitarget.h? not sure if the check for LIBFFI_H really helps with this. yes, if gcc and ffi.h are installed from the same source / into the same path, then the check for include dirs and libraries are obsolete. the check for the different library names comes from the observation that libgcj is linked against libffi as a convenience library (for performance reasons?). These are checked first so that not another external dependency is introduced, if these libraries are available (not installed by a standard gcc installation). updating the code would at least make the library buildable on hppa (or maybe this is just the failed (it's really a 32bit runtime, but hppa64-linux is detected). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Thomas Heller (theller) Date: 2006-04-06 14:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11105 I tend to accept this patch. Martin, any objections? Matthias: do any of the buildbot slaves have a system libffi installed? About the code: And, shouldn't it be enough to let the compiler find ffi.h? I assume that the presence of this file should indicate that libffi.so is installed - why do we have to scan this file for '#define LIBFFI_H', and why do we have to search for the ffi shared library? Would updating the included libffi code to GCC HEAD bring any advantages? The currently included code has been patched in a few places, to avoid some of the compiler warnings, and to allow compilation on OS X 10.3 (which does not know the 'live_support' segment attribute, see Python bug 1460514). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthias Klose (doko) Date: 2006-04-05 00:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=60903 It's not an external dependency, if it's not found. The size is not the argument. For distributors it's an additional maintainance burden to update copies of libraries. Security advisories for zlib (and pcre?) show this. patch updated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) Date: 2006-04-05 00:14 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=21627 Why is it desirable to link with the system ffi? That just adds an external dependency, for a negligable space saving (on x86, libffi.so.4.0.1 is 7840 bytes). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1464444&group_id=5470 _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
