[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Éric Araujo added the comment: Fair enough, I’d hate to cause the line to wrap over 80 characters for other people, so I’d live with the extra line on my system Pythons and with a personal patch for the versions I compile myself :) Thank you both for the thoughts and the fix. -- ___

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Georg Brandl added the comment: Agreed. I've also added a sentence in the docs (r83357) that a newline may be present. -- resolution: -> wont fix status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: On OS X, it's still something like 2.6.5 (r265:79359, Mar 24 2010, 01:32:55) [GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5493)] on Redhat, it once was 2.3.4 (#1, Oct 26 2004, 16:42:40) [GCC 3.4.2 20041017 (Red Hat 3.4.2-6.fc3)] Apple once had 2.3 (#1, Sep 13 2003, 00:4

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Éric Araujo added the comment: Maybe it has changed in ten years: [GCC 4.4.4] on linux2 Or maybe it’s long when run from an unreleased version built from the sources. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Georg Brandl added the comment: Hmm, in Python/getcompiler.c there is an explicit \n before [GCC ...], and this is why: r17259 | gvanrossum | 2000-09-05 06:40:39 +0200 (Di, 05. Sep 2000) The GCC version is loong;

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Éric Araujo added the comment: This change would bring the code in agreement with the docs: 'version (#build_number, build_date, build_time) [compiler]'. FWIW, it would also save one line, which can be useful in small terminals/consoles. Tentatively adding the easy keyword since fixing Python

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: msc is the same in 3.1. How about gcc? If still different, what change are you proposing? add \n to one or delete it from other? I agree that this is a (minor) unfortunate difference, but ... Changing either would be a pitfall to developers who only use one or

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Changes by Martin v. Löwis : -- assignee: loewis -> ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Changes by Martin v. Löwis : -- priority: -> low ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.py

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Changes by Martin v. Löwis : -- type: -> feature request ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http:/

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

Changes by Georg Brandl : -- assignee: -> loewis nosy: +loewis ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue5778] sys.version format differs between MSC and GCC

New submission from Toshihiro Kamiya : The value of sys.version includes a new-line char in GCC build. '2.5.2 (r252:60911, Oct 5 2008, 19:24:49) \n[GCC 4.3.2]' MSC build doesn't. '2.6.2 (r262:71605, Apr 14 2009, 22:46:50) [MSC v.1500 64 bit (AMD64)]' This seems a kind of pitfall for the develo