Author oscarbenjamin
Recipients Jeffrey.Armstrong, Martin.Fiers, Pete.Forman, RubyTuesdayDONO, Seppo.Yli-Olli, alexis, christian.heimes, cmcqueen1975, danmbox, doko, fratti, geertj, jonforums, jwilk, lemburg, loewis, merwok, oscarbenjamin, paul.moore, pje, renatosilva, rpetrov, rubenvb, santoso.wijaya, schmir, tarek
Date 2013-07-09.16:31:14
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAHVvXxS4YcYxfV2g35wfF=z97=a+tuj1OC_AJwZHzyEFGzjswQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1373383517.61.0.431527406195.issue12641@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On 9 July 2013 16:25, Christian Heimes <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> The is_cygwingcc() function can be simplified a lot with subprocess.check_output().

My initial thought was to do that but then I based it on
_find_exe_version which for whatever reason uses Popen directly [1].
I'm happy to make that change and retest the patches although I can't
do it right now.

Can someone first accept or reject the general idea of the patches
though? I'm happy to answer any questions about them but it takes time
to get the diffs right and test against all compilers and Python
versions and I don't really want to do it if the patches will just be
rejected.

Also I may soon lose access to the machine that I used to write and
test these patches. If it is desired for me to change and retest them
it may not be possible after two weeks or so.

[1] http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/3f3cbfd52f94/Lib/distutils/cygwinccompiler.py#l368
History
Date User Action Args
2013-07-09 16:31:14oscarbenjaminsetrecipients: + oscarbenjamin, lemburg, loewis, doko, paul.moore, pje, geertj, christian.heimes, schmir, tarek, jwilk, merwok, rpetrov, cmcqueen1975, rubenvb, santoso.wijaya, alexis, Seppo.Yli-Olli, jonforums, RubyTuesdayDONO, Jeffrey.Armstrong, danmbox, Martin.Fiers, Pete.Forman, renatosilva, fratti
2013-07-09 16:31:14oscarbenjaminlinkissue12641 messages
2013-07-09 16:31:14oscarbenjamincreate