Ronald Oussoren <ronaldousso...@mac.com> added the comment:
> IMHO platform.architecture() should return 32bit when running "arch -i386
> /usr/local/bin/python3" to be consistent with struct.calcsize("P") == 4 and
> sys.maxsize == 2147483647. Otherwise, how would you notice that you are using
> the 32-bit flavor of Python?
I don't agree. Platform.architecture() is defined to look at a specified
binary, not the currently running process. That can lead to inconsistencies
like this and is not something you can avoid.
> Ronald Oussoren:
> > Using sizeof(void*) or sys.maxsize suffers from the a simular problem:
> > this will only detect the pointer-size of the current proces and not that
> > the binary is capable of running with a different pointer-size as well.
> Right, but I don't think that it's possible to report that Python executable
> is FAT binary in platform.architecture() result. If you want to provide such
> information, IMHO you should write a new function or at least add a new
> parameter to platform.architecture().
> IMHO it's more consistent to report "32bit" for "arch -i386 python3" and
> "64bit" for "arch -x86_64 python3".
This doesn't necessarily need a new function, platform.architecture could also
return something like "32bit,64bit".
But as I mentioned in my previous message I don't know why anyone would want to
use this function in the first place. There are better ways to determine
information about the current process (struct.calcsize, sys.maxsize,
sys.byteorder), and I have never had a need to determine information about
executable files that I couldn't get in a better way using other libraries
(like macholib and pyelftools)
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35348>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
