Message122435
| Author |
strombrg |
| Recipients |
Christophe Simonis, Garen, amaury.forgeotdarc, arekm, devurandom, doko, eric.araujo, georg.brandl, jreese, lars.gustaebel, leonov, loewis, nicdumz, nikratio, ockham-razor, pitrou, proyvind, rcoyner, strombrg, thedjatclubrock, vstinner, ysj.ray |
| Date |
2010年11月26日.04:51:50 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.105916e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1290747112.44.0.514111189261.issue6715@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I agree that ctypes is a bit more brittle - both ctypes and c extension modules can yield segfaults, but at least the c extension module is likely to give an error or warning when you rebuild it.
However, I'm getting the impression that:
1) In pypy, the C extension module layer isn't a complete emulation
2) In pypy, the C extension module is a bit disfavored compared to ctypes
3) In pypy, there's a performance expense for CPyExt compared to ctypes
3) (less important) In pypy, the C extension module layer is still too young to do much with at this time
I've been wondering if maybe there should be a way to check ctypes use against .h's at build time. That way, the brittleness should be about the same. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年11月26日 04:51:52 | strombrg | set | recipients:
+ strombrg, loewis, georg.brandl, doko, amaury.forgeotdarc, arekm, lars.gustaebel, pitrou, vstinner, nicdumz, eric.araujo, Christophe Simonis, rcoyner, proyvind, nikratio, leonov, devurandom, Garen, ysj.ray, thedjatclubrock, ockham-razor, jreese |
| 2010年11月26日 04:51:52 | strombrg | set | messageid: <1290747112.44.0.514111189261.issue6715@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年11月26日 04:51:50 | strombrg | link | issue6715 messages |
| 2010年11月26日 04:51:50 | strombrg | create |
|