2009/4/23 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <[email protected]> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Michael Foord <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2009/4/7 Armin Rigo <[email protected]> > >> > >> Hi Luke, > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 06:10:28PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton > >> wrote: > >> > the "fly in the ointment" is that for "full" optimisation to occur, it > >> > is necessary to "break out" from the prison that intobject.c, > >> > longobject.c etc. make. > >> > > >> > once this prison is opened, by turning the hard-coded python types > >> > into a more flexible and dynamically-overridable architecture, you > >> > (the pypy developers) will be free to write modules that will allow > >> > interoperability between [admittedly recompiled] c-based python > >> > modules, with no effort [other than recompilation] required on the > >> > part of the users. > >> > >> I am not sure what the point you are trying to make is, just by reading > >> a bit of the URL you pointed to. Maybe I should read more... :-/ > >> > >> I should just point out that supporting C extension modules in PyPy has > >> been discussed, but the obvious conclusion was that you can't just > >> recompile the ones from CPython and hope that they work (unless you do > >> completely evil tricks, e.g. with the garbage collector). > > > > Well, we've achieved binary compatibility with a large proportion of the > > Python C-API for IronPython (including GC and GIL issues) with Ironclad. > > _cool_. excellent. > > > It certainly *can* be done. It's a lot of work to reimplement the Python > > C-API though. :-) > > nffh. > > hmm - do the unladen/swallow team know what you've managed to do? >
Absolutely no idea. :-) Michael -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
