[issue22980] C extension naming doesn't take bitness into account

[Marc-Andre Lemburg]

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment:

On 16.04.2015 18:53, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I'm disappointed that you discredit any other use case besides what you think as
> the typical use case as not real life use case.  Maybe you are focused on x86
> only, but if you've been to PyCon 2014, you should have a nice Raspberry Pi.
> What do you run on it, a soft float, or a hard float distribution? How do you
> distribute extensions for that? Yes, you can run both at the same time. There
> are now the first 64bit Raspberry Pi like boards (https://www.96boards.org/).
> Most of the SoCs can run ARM32 hard- and soft-float binaries, but not all, and
> that's why AArch64 gets an ILP32 ABI too. Maybe you don't like the variety in
> the ARM world, but's that real life.

I'm not trying to discredit any use cases, I just don't see them.

For package distributions you do need to make your distribution
files unique and it makes sense adding such complex ABI tags
to them, including even having to invest into manually maintaining
them.

However, for plain .so files that you have on your system (which will
mostly like not support more than 2-4 different architecture configurations
running at the same time), I don't currently see a need to make things
more complicated than necessary.

Perhaps you can point me to some use cases where the triple
platform tag is really useful.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue22980>
_______________________________________