[Pythonmac-SIG] Regarding universal python framework....

[Ronald Oussoren]

On 30 Jan, 2007, at 23:13, Christopher Barker wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I had a question/comment from a numpy/Scipy developer that I was asked
> to forward on:
>
>>> To get the "definition" of "universal" I went to
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Binaries
>>>
>>> the last paragraph says:
>>> Apple's Xcode 2.4 takes the concept of universal binaries even
>>> further, by allowing four-architecture binaries to be created (32  
>>> and
>>> 64 bit for both Intel and PowerPC), therefore allowing a single
>>> executable to take full advantage of the CPU capabilities of any Mac
>>> OS X machine
>
> What are folk's thoughts on building "quad binary" universal builds in
> the future? Is there much point? Are there any 64bit Intel Macs? What
> difference might a 64bit build make on a G5?

I'd love to see a 4-way universal build of python, but mostly just  
because of the coolness factor not that I really need it. As Bob  
noted this isn't as simple as turning on extra CFLAGS and I don't  
have time to work on this for the forseeable future.

With a 4-way universal build I'd make the framework itself 4-way  
universal and have two sets of python interpreters: "python/ 
python2.5" and "python-64/python2.5-64". That way users can  
explicitly choose if they want to use a 64-bit build. This is a hard  
requirement for Tiger because of the severe limitations on the API's  
you can use there in 64-bit mode, but even on Leopard 64-bit is not  
always the right choice.

Ronald