Stefan Krah <stefan-use...@bytereef.org> added the comment: Marc-Andre Lemburg <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to have distutils tell the user about the > possible options, instead of guessing and then possibly compiling > extensions which later on don't import or import, but don't work > as expected ?
That would be an option, yes. > Regarding the latest patch: This is not the right approach, since > find_vcvarsall() is supposed to return the path to the vcvarsall.bat > file and not an architecture specific setup file. It is later > called with the arch identifier, which the arch specific setup files > don't check or use. The patch does not change anything for Visual Studio Pro. In Visual Studio Express (+SDK) vcvarsall.bat is broken, so the architecture specific setup files have to be used (they also work with a superfluous parameter). > Also note that vcvarsall.bat can take these options: > > x86 (default), x64, amd64, x86_amd64, ia64, x86_ia64 > > The x86_* options setup the cross compilers. I think the patch covers all architecture specific files that are present in the Visual Studio Express + SDK setup. Visual Studio Pro is protected from all changes by checking for the presence of the file bin\amd64\vcvarsamd64.bat. This could probably be done more elegantly by using some obscure registry value. As Thorsten mentioned, another option would be to copy bin\vcvars64.bat to bin\amd64\vcvarsamd64.bat if the latter is not present. This is harmless, but it is perhaps not really the business of Python to mess with existing installs. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7511> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
