>> a) even if your extension module becomes x86_64 with that mechanism,
>>the Python interpreter itself (i.e. the Python framework) will be
>>purely 32-bit code. So it should not link correctly.
>
> My machine disagrees:
I see. I guess Apple has implemented that somehow; the official Pyth
> This means the modules need to be compiles for at least both i386 and
> x86_64 in my case.
Building Python in 64-bit mode as a universal (fat) binary is not
supported in Python 2.5, period. So any solution you come necessarily
has to be a work-around.
The only solution I can see is to make a pl
On Nov 14, 7:40 pm, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This means the modules need to be compiles for at least both i386 and
> > x86_64 in my case.
>
> Building Python in 64-bit mode as a universal (fat) binary is not
> supported in Python 2.5, period. So any solution you come necessa
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> Hi fellow python enthusiasts.
>
> Having recently acquired a MacBook Pro (Intel Core 2 Duo) which comes
> with python2.5, I have been installing some modules that I need (PIL,
> psycopg2, PyXML ...).
>
> The problem is that [$python setup.py build] compiles all the binar
