On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:09:34 PM UTC+1, bartc wrote: > On 16/05/2017 08:53, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > >> Am 15.05.17 um 23:58 schrieb Chris Angelico: > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Deborah Swanson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> But I'm a little more mystified that official Python builds are leaning > >>>> on Visual C++ (and that's what the crutch comment was primarily aimed > >>>> at). > >>> > >>> You seem to be of the opinion that some day, binary executables will > >>> be compiled using pure Python code. Maybe that's true; maybe it's not. > >> > >> > >> More likely would be the option to ship a C compiler with Python written in > >> C. For C++ this is way too big, but a pure C compiler can be as small as > >> 1MB. tcc has a liberal license, supports many platforms and gives > >> reasonable > >> (unoptimized) code. AFAIK Mathworks does that, they ship tcc on Windows so > >> that you can build .mex files without installing additional software, > >> though > >> they recommend to get a decent compiler for performance reasons > >> > > > > To do that, Python would itself have to be compiled with tcc, or else > > all memory de/allocation would have to be funneled through a > > Python-provided API. And that's going to kill performance, I suspect. > > I can't test with Python because it's too complicated to compile, > especially on Windows. > > -- > bartc
What is the problem with the documentation given here https://docs.python.org/devguide ? Specifically:- "and on Windows use: PCbuild\build.bat -e -d" Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
