How hostile would you be to a pypy-2.8 branch with these kinds of improvements?
-Mark > On Feb 23, 2014, at 1:04, Armin Rigo <ar...@tunes.org> wrote: > > Hi Dima, > >> On 22 February 2014 20:51, Dima Tisnek <dim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Right, I narrowed it down to condition.wait being much slower with a >> timeout than without. > > Thanks! Fixed. Indeed, I simply took the version of lock.acquire() > from the py3k branch (with support for timeout and interrupts), and > applied it in the default branch, under the name lock._py3k_acquire(). > Then, simply fixing threading.py to use this, solves the performance > issue reported here. I guess the same could be done with CPython --- > it's just a performance fix --- but given the destructive approach of > python-dev towards 2.7, I doubt it will be accepted. > > > A bientôt, > > Armin. > _______________________________________________ > pypy-dev mailing list > pypy-dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
