-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 225
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
drop 32-bit support? #128
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
To give some context: I was just having some issues with the 32bit image while making my customized image, I didn't notice that I need to run |
Not every project has the same audience. For our project, 45% of the manylinux downloads are 32-bit. There's no chance we can afford to drop 32-bit support. |
45%? Whoa. What project is that?
…On Nov 24, 2017 4:15 AM, "rdb" ***@***.***> wrote:
Not every project has the same audience. For our project, 45% of the
manylinux downloads are 32-bit. There's no chance we can afford to drop
32-bit support.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#128 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlOaPfDwEk0w3i4Q2wIplYSjKINKv9bks5s5rNfgaJpZM4Qpo5X>
.
|
Hmm, I just noticed that your query includes bandersnatch downloads. Excluding those, I get the more reasonable number of 16%, which sounds far less surprising, although still enough reason to keep supporting 32-bit. |
I pulled some more stats on this, since the discussion has come up again int he context of manylinux2 (where we don't necessarily have good 32-bit compilers). Here's a table showing 32- and 64-bit manylinux downloads for the last ~5 weeks, split up by project, sorted by the 32-bit / 64-bit ratio:
Query:
|
Hmm, this also includes mirror downloads – I'm not sure off the top of my head how we restrict to only pip... |
Okay, that was easy :-). I added a https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kPU-O9EoiNer5aYFXmRwu-g2bv8Yih332kB9xtkiR5o/edit |
It turns out that devtools-7 supports compiling 32-bit binaries on 64-bit architectures. I haven't been able to cross compile a 32-bit Python yet because a) I didn't build a patched 32-bit However, it seems like this ought to be possible, in which case we can just have a 64-bit image that can build both 32-bit and 64-bit wheels... |
It turns out that devtoolset-7 doesn't ship a complete 32-bit cross compilation toolchain; it only includes a subset of 32 bit libraries and doesn't include supporting 32-bit programs like Building 32-bit Pythons on the 64-bit doesn't appear to be possible without non-trivial effort. Maybe somebody else can find an easier way to do it. |
That should be more straightforward using https://github.com/python-cmake-buildsystem/python-cmake-buildsystem You can even compile CPython to a broad set of target. And if cross-compilation beyond 32-bit is of interest, these collection of docker images may be relevant to you https://github.com/dockcross/dockcross |
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
@ionelmc was asking in
#pypa
whether anyone actually uses 32-bit linux, so I ran some queries, and it looks like currently the answer is:So no, almost no-one uses 32-bit linux. I figured I'd open an issue to write down this observation, and raise the question of whether (or when) we should stop bothering to make 32-bit manylinux images.
Noting for future reference:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: