I wonder if this patch could just be rejected instead of lingering forever? It clearly has no champion among the current core devs and therefore it won't be included in Python 3.6 (we're all volunteers so that's how it goes).
The use case for the patch is also debatable: Python's parser wasn't designed to *efficiently* parse huge data tables like that, and if you have that much data, using JSON is the right answer. So this doesn't really scratch anyone's itch except of the patch author (Artyom). From a quick look it seems the patch is very disruptive in terms of what it changes, so it's not easy to review. I recommend giving up, closing the issue as "won't fix", recommending to use JSON, and moving on. Sometimes a change is just not worth the effort. --Guido On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Artyom Skrobov <artyom.skro...@arm.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > This is a monthly ping to get a review on http://bugs.python.org/issue26415 > -- “Excessive peak memory consumption by the Python parser”. > > > > Following the comments from July, the patches now include updating Misc/NEWS > and compiler.rst to describe the change. > > > > The code change itself is still the same as a month ago. > > > > > > From: Artyom Skrobov > Sent: 07 July 2016 15:44 > To: python-dev@python.org; st...@pearwood.info; mafagafogiga...@gmail.com; > greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz > Cc: nd > Subject: RE: Python parser performance optimizations > > > > Hello, > > > > This is a monthly ping to get a review on http://bugs.python.org/issue26415 > -- “Excessive peak memory consumption by the Python parser”. > > The first patch of the series (an NFC refactoring) was successfully > committed earlier in June, so the next step is to get the second patch, “the > payload”, reviewed and committed. > > > > To address the concerns raised by the commenters back in May: the patch > doesn’t lead to negative memory consumption, of course. The base for > calculating percentages is the smaller number of the two; this is the same > style of reporting that perf.py uses. In other words, “200% less memory > usage” is a threefold shrink. > > > > The absolute values, and the way they were produced, are all reported under > the ticket. > > > > > > From: Artyom Skrobov > Sent: 26 May 2016 11:19 > To: 'python-dev@python.org' > Subject: Python parser performance optimizations > > > > Hello, > > > > Back in March, I’ve posted a patch at http://bugs.python.org/issue26526 -- > “In parsermodule.c, replace over 2KLOC of hand-crafted validation code, with > a DFA”. > > > > The motivation for this patch was to enable a memory footprint optimization, > discussed at http://bugs.python.org/issue26415 > > My proposed optimization reduces the memory footprint by up to 30% on the > standard benchmarks, and by 200% on a degenerate case which sparked the > discussion. > > The run time stays unaffected by this optimization. > > > > Python Developer’s Guide says: “If you don’t get a response within a few > days after pinging the issue, then you can try emailing > python-dev@python.org asking for someone to review your patch.” > > > > So, here I am. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
