I don't think it worked. Theres no real difference when running
pybench and my own code runs the same as before. Pity. (PS: this is
with the svn version of python)

2009/1/9 Daniel Kersten <[email protected]>:
> Ok, part of the patch failed, but I reapplied it and it builds now. I
> think I applied it BEFORE running ./configure, so the Makefile was
> wrong. At least, I guess that was the problem.
>
> Now, I guess I need to benchmark to see if it worked regardless of the
> patching errors..
>
> Thanks for the help though!!
>
> Dan.
>
> 2009/1/9 Daniel Kersten <[email protected]>:
>> Ok, tried applying patch to both 2.6.1 and svn versions:
>>
>> dan-desktop ~/Desktop/python/release26-maint: patch -p1 < 
>> threadedceval5.patch
>> patching file Makefile.pre.in
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 248 (offset 1 line).
>> Hunk #2 succeeded at 578 with fuzz 2 (offset 4 lines).
>> patching file Python/ceval.c
>> Hunk #1 succeeded at 578 (offset -3 lines).
>> Hunk #2 succeeded at 752 (offset -2 lines).
>> Hunk #3 succeeded at 1061 (offset -71 lines).
>> Hunk #4 succeeded at 1119 (offset -71 lines).
>> Hunk #5 succeeded at 1136 (offset -71 lines).
>> Hunk #6 FAILED at 1148.
>> Hunk #7 FAILED at 1263.
>> Hunk #8 FAILED at 1424.
>> ... <more text>
>> 15 out of 50 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Python/ceval.c.rej
>> patching file Python/makeopcodetargets.py
>> patching file Python/opcode_targets.h
>>
>>
>> Also, the script Python/makeopcodetargets.py exists and runs fine
>> (generates the file Python/opcode_targets.h), but some of the
>> generated opcodes STILL give "undefined" errors.
>> Since it uses a gcc specific extension, perhaps it is not recognizing
>> the labels as constants? Though, I assume the patch would enable it
>> and I AM using gcc after all.
>>
>>
>> 2009/1/8 Padraig Kitterick <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> You want:
>>>
>>> patch -p1 < threadedceval5.patch
>>>
>>> Padraig
>>>
>>> Daniel Kersten wrote:
>>>> Hrm, thats strange.. it SAYS it was applied correctly.. i think..
>>>>
>>>> 2009/1/8 Padraig Kitterick <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>> That script is created by the patch, so if you don't see it then the
>>>>> patch hasn't applied correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel Kersten wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did something like: patch -p1 Makefile < threadedceval5.patch
>>>>>> Also, I don't have that script. Where do I get it, I don't see it 
>>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes sense that they would have used the svn version - I used
>>>>>> 2.6.1 sources found on the python.org download page. I'll try the svn
>>>>>> version tomorrow and see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/1/8 Michael Twomey <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, off the top of my head, I bet these are patches against svn,
>>>>>>> which probably means to need to run autoconf & co to regenerate
>>>>>>> configure and the makefiles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 17:11, Padraig Kitterick
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those labels that are undefined should be generated as part of the make
>>>>>>>> rules that the patch inserts ($(srcdir)/Python/makeopcodetargets.py).
>>>>>>>> How did you apply the patch?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daniel Kersten wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has anyone got any experience applying the threaded code patch to 
>>>>>>>>> Python 2.6?
>>>>>>>>> http://bugs.python.org/issue4753
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently it changes the eval loop to uses threaded code instead of
>>>>>>>>> table lookups or something like that and can make the interpreter
>>>>>>>>> execute 10-20% faster on most platforms. Only works in gcc because it
>>>>>>>>> requires gcc's labels as values extension.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I'm trying to get this working and have applied the
>>>>>>>>> threadedceval5.patch patch. I don't really know much about diff/patch,
>>>>>>>>> so maybe I'm doing it wrong.. I'm not sure if I need the other files
>>>>>>>>> or what. The patch seems to have worked fine, but when compiling
>>>>>>>>> Python (2.6.1) I get this error:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Python/ceval.c: In function 'PyEval_EvalFrameEx':
>>>>>>>>> Python/ceval.c:1057: error: '_Py_TracingPossible' undeclared (first
>>>>>>>>> use in this function)
>>>>>>>>> Python/ceval.c:1057: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported 
>>>>>>>>> only once
>>>>>>>>> Python/ceval.c:1057: error: for each function it appears in.)
>>>>>>>>> Python/opcode_targets.h:149: error: label 'TARGET_MAP_ADD' used but 
>>>>>>>>> not defined
>>>>>>>>> Python/opcode_targets.h:148: error: label 'TARGET_SET_ADD' used but 
>>>>>>>>> not defined
>>>>>>>>> Python/opcode_targets.h:147: error: label 'TARGET_LIST_APPEND' used
>>>>>>>>> but not defined
>>>>>>>>> Python/opcode_targets.h:136: error: label 'TARGET_MAKE_CLOSURE' used
>>>>>>>>> but not defined
>>>>>>>>> Python/opcode_targets.h:134: error: label 'TARGET_MAKE_FUNCTION' used
>>>>>>>>> but not defined
>>>>>>>>> Python/opcode_targets.h:132: error: label 'TARGET_RAISE_VARARGS' used
>>>>>>>>> but not defined
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> followed by more undefined labels.
>>>>>>>>> Python/opcode_targets.h is just a big table of opcodes, the opcodes
>>>>>>>>> being the TARGET_* labels, but they don't seem to be defined any
>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has anyone successfully got this working? If yes, what am I doing 
>>>>>>>>> wrong?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
>>>>>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kersten.
>> Leveraging dynamic paradigms since the synergies of 1985.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kersten.
> Leveraging dynamic paradigms since the synergies of 1985.
>



-- 
Daniel Kersten.
Leveraging dynamic paradigms since the synergies of 1985.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Python Ireland" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.ie/group/pythonireland?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to