gh-136677: Introduce executable specific linker flags to configure - #137296
Merged
FFY00 merged 7 commits intoFeb 24, 2026
Merged
FFY00 merged 7 commits into
FFY00 merged 7 commits into
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Sorry, something went wrong.
Add PY_CORE_EXE_LDFLAGS and EXE_LDFLAGS which stores executable specific LDFLAGS, replacing PY_CORE_LDFLAGS for building executable targets. If PY_CORE_EXE_LDFLAGS / EXE_LDFLAGS is not provided, then it defaults to the value of PY_CORE_LDFLAGS which is the existing behaviour. If both flags are supplied, and there is a need to distinguish between executable and shared specific LDFLAGS, in particular, PY_CORE_LDFLAGS should contain the shared specific LDFLAGS.
rueteh
requested review from
a team,
corona10 and
erlend-aasland
as code owners
August 1, 2025 06:37
Copy link
Copy Markdown
|
All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
rueteh
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 1, 2025 07:18
FFY00
approved these changes
Dec 10, 2025
FFY00
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, something went wrong.
vstinner
reviewed
Dec 16, 2025
Comment thread
Makefile.pre.in
Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org>
FFY00
enabled auto-merge (squash)
February 24, 2026 21:34
This reverts commit 8638770. Signed-off-by: Filipe Laíns <lains@riseup.net>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
⚠️⚠️⚠️ Buildbot failure ⚠️⚠️⚠️Hi! The buildbot AMD64 FreeBSD Refleaks 3.x (tier-3) has failed when building commit 4e45c9c. What do you need to do:
You can take a look at the buildbot page here: https://buildbot.python.org/#/builders/1613/builds/2905 Test leaking resources:
Summary of the results of the build (if available): == Click to see traceback logsTraceback (most recent call last):
File "/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.ware-freebsd.refleak/build/Lib/test/support/__init__.py", line 947, in gc_collect
gc.collect()
~~~~~~~~~~^^
ResourceWarning: unclosed <socket.socket fd=10, family=2, type=1, proto=6, laddr=('127.0.0.1', 25902), raddr=('127.0.0.1', 25903)>
Task was destroyed but it is pending!
task: <Task pending name='Task-3624' coro=<BaseSelectorEventLoop._accept_connection2() done, defined at /buildbot/buildarea/3.x.ware-freebsd.refleak/build/Lib/asyncio/selector_events.py:217> wait_for=<Future pending cb=[Task.task_wakeup()]>>
Warning -- Unraisable exception
Exception ignored while calling deallocator <function _SelectorTransport.__del__ at 0x8455fcb90>:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.ware-freebsd.refleak/build/Lib/asyncio/selector_events.py", line 873, in __del__
_warn(f"unclosed transport {self!r}", ResourceWarning, source=self)
~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ResourceWarning: unclosed transport <_SelectorSocketTransport closing fd=10>
k
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.ware-freebsd.refleak/build/Lib/test/support/__init__.py", line 947, in gc_collect
gc.collect()
~~~~~~~~~~^^
ResourceWarning: unclosed <socket.socket fd=9, family=2, type=1, proto=6, laddr=('127.0.0.1', 39196), raddr=('127.0.0.1', 39197)>
Task was destroyed but it is pending!
task: <Task pending name='Task-2445' coro=<BaseSelectorEventLoop._accept_connection2() done, defined at /buildbot/buildarea/3.x.ware-freebsd.refleak/build/Lib/asyncio/selector_events.py:217> wait_for=<Future pending cb=[Task.task_wakeup()]>>
Warning -- Unraisable exception
Exception ignored while calling deallocator <function _SelectorTransport.__del__ at 0x840397650>:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.ware-freebsd.refleak/build/Lib/asyncio/selector_events.py", line 873, in __del__
_warn(f"unclosed transport {self!r}", ResourceWarning, source=self)
~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ResourceWarning: unclosed transport <_SelectorSocketTransport closing fd=9>
k
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
|
It seems like test_regrtest is failing on the buildbot with ENV_CHANGED. I don't think is related to this, but let's keep an eye on main. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
|
Seems to be fine. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
brijkapadia
pushed a commit
to brijkapadia/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2026
…ure (python#137296) * introduce executable specific linker flags Add PY_CORE_EXE_LDFLAGS and EXE_LDFLAGS which stores executable specific LDFLAGS, replacing PY_CORE_LDFLAGS for building executable targets. If PY_CORE_EXE_LDFLAGS / EXE_LDFLAGS is not provided, then it defaults to the value of PY_CORE_LDFLAGS which is the existing behaviour. If both flags are supplied, and there is a need to distinguish between executable and shared specific LDFLAGS, in particular, PY_CORE_LDFLAGS should contain the shared specific LDFLAGS. * documentation for new linker flags * update Misc folder documentation * Update Makefile.pre.in Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org> --------- Co-authored-by: Filipe Laíns <filipe.lains@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org> Co-authored-by: Filipe Laíns <lains@riseup.net>
ljfp
pushed a commit
to ljfp/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2026
…ure (python#137296) * introduce executable specific linker flags Add PY_CORE_EXE_LDFLAGS and EXE_LDFLAGS which stores executable specific LDFLAGS, replacing PY_CORE_LDFLAGS for building executable targets. If PY_CORE_EXE_LDFLAGS / EXE_LDFLAGS is not provided, then it defaults to the value of PY_CORE_LDFLAGS which is the existing behaviour. If both flags are supplied, and there is a need to distinguish between executable and shared specific LDFLAGS, in particular, PY_CORE_LDFLAGS should contain the shared specific LDFLAGS. * documentation for new linker flags * update Misc folder documentation * Update Makefile.pre.in Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org> --------- Co-authored-by: Filipe Laíns <filipe.lains@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org> Co-authored-by: Filipe Laíns <lains@riseup.net>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Reviewers
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Introduce two new flags EXE_LDFLAGS and PY_CORE_EXE_LDFLAGS to contain executable target specific linker options for building the python interpreter as well as other executables.
Notes
If provided, this effectively means that PY_CORE_LDFLAGS (as well as the chain of flags used by this variable) is exclusively used to build shared libraries / bundles. In addition, any common linker flags applicable to both types of targets would also need to be supplied to EXE_LDFLAGS and LDFLAGS.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--137296.org.readthedocs.build/