On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 March 2018 at 09:49, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> Another example is the multiprocessing module: it's very safe to >>> assume that the parent and the child are using the same interpreter >>> :-). There's no fundamental reason you shouldn't be able to send >>> bytecode between them. >> >> You put a smiley on it, but is this actually guaranteed on all >> platforms? On Unix-like systems, presumably it's using fork() and thus >> will actually use the exact same binary, but what about on Windows, >> where a new process has to be spawned? Can you say "spawn me another >> of this exact binary blob", or do you have to identify it by a file >> name? >> >> It wouldn't be a problem for the nonportable mode to toss out an >> exception in weird cases like this, but it _would_ be a problem if >> that causes a segfault or something. > > If you're embedding, you need multiprocessing.set_executable() > (https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/multiprocessing.html#multiprocessing.set_executable), > so in that case you definitely *won't* have the same binary...
Ah, and that also showed me that forking isn't mandatory on Unix either. So yeah, there's no assuming that they use the same binary. I doubt it'll be a problem to pickle though as it'll use some form of versioning even in NONPORTABLE mode right? ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
