[Bf-python] 32/64-bit binary Python add-ons

[Thomas Krijnen]

Hi,

For my specific case, ad-hoc compilation is not an option, for it can take
over an hour to compile due to the many dependencies.Maybe the universal
32/64 bit lib is the best option indeed, based on sys.maxsize link to
either the 32 or 64 bit variant. I was weary of this because of the
filesize of the addon: that would yield an addon filesize roughly the same
as the complete blender installation, which is hard to justify imo. Thanks
for your input.

Best,
Thomas
IfcOpenShell.org


On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Dan Eicher <dan at trollwerks.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Brecht Van Lommel <
> brechtvanlommel at pandora.be> wrote:
>
>> > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Thomas Krijnen <t.krijnen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> Regarding compiling binaries for many platforms in general, that
>> indeed gets complex. But what can we do about this?
>>
>
> The easiest way would be to use something like cython which can compile on
> the fly and cache the result so one would only have to do it the first time
> the addons were loaded.
>
> But that'd be adding more runtime deps -- cython itself, a compiler
> toolchain, &etc...
>
> BTW, I think I have my simple little project to get makesrna to generate
> cython (read-only) bindings around RNA_blender.h in a usable state now
> (still need to do some unit tests but the generated code LGTM) so spending
> some brain-cycles on this will probably help out exporter writers and
> whatnot who don't want to suffer the py-penality of going through bpy.
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-python mailing list
> Bf-python at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-python
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-python/attachments/20130104/29fe9168/attachment.html>