[tahoe-dev] [pycryptopp] #37: Win64 and MSVC9 compilation fixes

[pycryptopp]

#37: Win64 and MSVC9 compilation fixes
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
     Reporter:  sneves  |      Owner:  sneves
         Type:  defect  |     Status:  new   
     Priority:  major   |    Version:  0.5.17
   Resolution:          |   Keywords:        
Launchpad Bug:          |  
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------

Comment (by zooko):

 sneves:

 As I think I mentioned to you on IRC, there is an idiom that is used in
 some setup.py files which is to attempt a build and then if it fails to
 fall back to a method of building which is more likely to work even if it
 produces less efficient results. This idiom is normally used for
 attempting to compile a C extension module and then falling back to a
 pure-Python implementation if the compilation fails, e.g.:

 http://code.google.com/p/simplejson/source/browse/trunk/setup.py?spec=svn231&r=230#sl_svn230_63

 However, I guess the same approach would work to attempt to build
 {{{.asm}}} files and then fall back to excluding them if the attempt to
 compile fails. What do you think? It smells a bit too clever/magical to
 me, but on the other hand I do prefer testing whether we can ''do'' the
 thing we want to do over testing whether we have a certain version of a
 certain tool which can do that thing (i.e. whether we have a sufficiently
 new version of MSVC).

 My discomfort about the magicalness of it could be eased if we inspected
 the exception that resulted from trying to build the {{{.asm}}} files and
 then proceeded to try to build without the {{{.asm}}} files only if the
 exception indicated that it was the .asm files that were the problem for
 the compiler.

 What do you think?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/37#comment:8>
pycryptopp <http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp>
Python bindings for the Crypto++ library