This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author rubenvb
Recipients BreamoreBoy, WhiteTiger, arbitraryvalue, cdavid, cgohlke, cournape, donmez, eric.araujo, giampaolo.rodola, jdpipe, loewis, paul.moore, r.david.murray, ralf.gommers, rpetrov, rubenvb, scott.tsai, simonzack
Date 2015-05-19.09:44:39
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>

OK, I understand your point of view. As you say, there is no single "MinGW" community, nor a guiding body that takes these decisions. If you're not willing to choose one, all I can say is this: it will probably not matter which version you choose (all will work), only mixing them won't work.

A sound choice would be to follow the Qt Project (it's what they ship in their SDK):
They chose the dw2/posix combo, which IMHO is the best choice all-round.
For 64-bit, the obvious one is seh/posix.
Incidentally, that's what MSYS2 people chose, and they regularly build all of Python with these toolchains (plus some other packages including numpy/scipy), see and search for "-python-".
These python builds are done from source, do not link to msvcr100, but just msvcrt.dll, which is the OS component MinGW GCC links to currently and in the foreseeable future.

As it stands, you can easily reproduce these builds by:
1. Installing MSYS2 (download and install, see
2. Installing GCC (i.e. "pacman -S mingw-w64-i686-gcc" for 32-bit or "pacman -S mingw-w64-x86_64-gcc" for 64-bit)
3. Installing all of Python's dependencies (see e.g. PKGBUILD:
4. running makepkg in the directory with the python PKGBUILD with the patches next to it. make sure to use the "MinGW-w64 Win64 Shell" or "MinGW-w64 Win32 Shell") that MSYS2 places in your start menu. This sets PATH to include the relevant toolchains and tools, much like the VS command prompts.

You can then extract the necessary dependency DLLs from the MSYS2's /mingw32/bin and /mingw64/bin directories so that a standalone MinGW-w64 Python installation can be created from that without issue. 

If you feel this qualifies as an easy, maintainable, reproducible setup, perhaps work can be done to integrate the large amount of patches currently required. Note that these patches will work with any decent and/or official MinGW-w64 GCC build. The time of everyone needing to build their own toolchain is past. Even if some people still building all kinds of cludgy variants seem to have missed the memo.

Note that these builds differ from the official MSVC builds (which may not be a bad thing: it keeps MSVC<->GCC compatibility issues arising from mixing the code to a minimum). Obviously, when MinGW-w64/GCC supports the UCRT stuff, this incompatibility can be harmoniously resolved. Until then, this seems to me like a good solution, and it is how everyone else is doing it (i.e. separate GCC builds on Windows).

If there is no interest in having a (community-supported, semi-official) GCC-built Python on Windows, I'm sure something else can also be worked out, which would include stripping the current dinosaur -mno-cygwin code which is what this bug was originally all about.
Date User Action Args
2015-05-19 09:44:40rubenvbsetrecipients: + rubenvb, loewis, paul.moore, jdpipe, giampaolo.rodola, donmez, scott.tsai, cdavid, eric.araujo, rpetrov, r.david.murray, cgohlke, WhiteTiger, BreamoreBoy, cournape, arbitraryvalue, ralf.gommers, simonzack
2015-05-19 09:44:40rubenvbsetmessageid: <>
2015-05-19 09:44:40rubenvblinkissue4709 messages
2015-05-19 09:44:39rubenvbcreate