On the python-dev mailing list, Raymond Hettinger asks:
> I was exercising the alpha two release of 3.4 and noticed that
> it is still being built under GCC 4.2.1.  
> 
> Is there any reason we have to use an old compiler?

Yes, kinda.  It's because the 64-bit/32-bit installer we supply is designed to run on multiple versions of OS X: 10.6 (Snow Leopard), 10.7, 10.8, and the upcoming 10.9.  The safest way to ensure that the bits produced (executables, shared libs, and .so bundles) are linked with compatible versions of system shared libraries and frameworks is to build on the lowest supported system, 10.6, or - carefully - with a 10.6 SDK on a newer system.  The standard compiler in the Apple Developer Tools for 10.6 is gcc 4.2.  The most recent Developer Tools for 10.8 and 10.7 systems, Xcode 4.6.x, have a mature clang but do not provide a 10.6 SDK.  Even with using an SDK, it's still possible to end up inadvertently linking with the wrong versions of system libraries.  We have been burned by that in the past.

> I would like to see it built under the latest version of Clang
> (like the other tools on the Mac) or under GCC 4.8.1.
> I've better using the latter for many months.  It works great
> and produces *much* better code (in terms of readability
> for those of us who look at assembly output and in terms
> of speed (approx 20-25% better for cpu bound code)).
> 
> I'm wondering whether is some issue that forces us to use
> GCC 4.2.1 or whether that is just an artifact of continuing
> to do what we've always been doing.

I'd like to move to Apple's latest clang, as well.  (Apple is dropping gcc totally from the next release of Xcode.)  There are a couple of approaches that may work and still reliably support multiple versions of OS X.  Investigating this is on my list of things to do prior to the next alpha.

If you find it difficult to find people with 10.6 systems to build a Python dmg for that platform, give me a shout. I'm not planning on replacing my system anytime soon. I have 10.6.8 installed, and what I believe to be the last Xcode version to support it, 3.2.something.

Thanks, Skip. At the moment, finding platforms for building and testing is not a problem: I have at hand running versions of the latest releases for 10.3 onwards. :)  (Buildbots for automated testing are another issue, though. We have a critical need for buildbots running more recent versions of OS X, though.  At the moment, the only OS X buildbot is one running 10.4 (Tiger).  If anyone is able to provide newer ones, please see http://python.org/dev/buildbot/.  Or, if someone would like to donate hardware, I may be able to arrange hosting for it.)

I guess snakebite (http://www.snakebite.net/) never materialized?

Snakebite did provide some additional OS X buildbots for a while but, AFAIK, they have been offline for some months now.

Snakebite is live, and python committers can get shell access on the bots, as originally planned.  Some of the bots are offline, but most are running.  I don't see any OS X servers in the list, though, unless Antoine deleted them (but there are several other currently-offline ones he hasn't deleted, so I doubt that).

I've spun up a 10.6.8 OS X buildbot.

New changeset 5e385dcfbd32 by Ned Deily in branch 'default':
Issue #19019: Change the OS X installer build script to use CFLAGS instead
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/5e385dcfbd32

Now that Xcode 5 is out, and does not have anything named "gcc-4.2" (it _does_ still have something called "gcc", which is now a wrapper around clang instead of a wrapper around llvm-gcc-4.2), this seems a lot more critical, because (as far as I can tell) nobody with Xcode 5 can build C extensions for python.org Python installations.

And that also implies that any changes need to be backported to 2.7 and 3.3, unless the plan is that only Python 3.4+ should work with Xcode 5.

"nobody with Xcode 5 can build C extensions for python.org Python installations"

Andrew, can you elaborate on what problems you or others are seeing?  Xcode 5 should not be an issue for users of the current python.org Pythons. When building extension modules, if the compiler Python was built with is not available Distutils in the current 2.7.x, 3.3.x, and 3.4.x release will substitute clang.  This assumes they have the Command Line Tools installed, either through Xcode or the standalone CLT package and assumes that the user is not overriding defaults by setting environment variables like CC and LDSHARED which Distutils will honor without attempting to modify them.  This should all be independent of what compiler Python was built with.

New changeset 323f1dcceb73 by Ned Deily in branch '2.7':
Issue #19019: Change the OS X installer build script to use CFLAGS instead
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/323f1dcceb73

New changeset 689b5c2d6959 by Ned Deily in branch '3.3':
Issue #19019: Change the OS X installer build script to use CFLAGS instead
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/689b5c2d6959

New changeset ee8e4b61d6181f5bfadf6ee3d229f0ebda8a6ae9 by Ned Deily in branch '2.7':
[2.7] Backport macOS universal build and installer fixes from 3.6. (GH-6469)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/ee8e4b61d6181f5bfadf6ee3d229f0ebda8a6ae9

New changeset 93c91ac8f67ef0819ddacdcca12ef0ae88e5802e by Ned Deily in branch '2.7':
[2.7] Fix errant NEWS item: bpo-19019 -> bpo-17128 (GH-6470)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/93c91ac8f67ef0819ddacdcca12ef0ae88e5802e

As of 3.6.5, 2.7.15, and the upcoming 3.7.0. the macOS installers now build with a generic 'gcc' specified, rather than the somewhat confusing 'gcc-4.2' and we also provide a new 10.9+ 64-bit-only installer variant that is built with clang.  So I think we can finally close this issue.  Thanks all!