On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:24:26 -0400
> "R. David Murray" wrote:
>>
>> It would be great if rebase did work with share, that would make a
>> push race basically a non-issue for me.
>
> rebase as well as strip destroy some history, meaning some
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> I can confirm that the Cython project was as surprised of the PyCapsule
>> change in Python 3.2 as (I guess) most other users, and I would claim that
>> we are a project with one of the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:16:11 +0100
> reid.kleckner wrote:
>> @@ -265,34 +271,43 @@
>> generates enough output to a pipe such that it blocks waiting
>> for the OS pipe buffer to accept more data.
>>
>> + .. versionchanged::
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Reid Kleckner
> wrote:
>> They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
>> http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
>>
>> That will allocate 1 Python object
They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
That will allocate 1 Python object with no dict per key, but that
might not be good enough.
Reid
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I was just reminded that in Python 3
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Also changing it now would be a giant hassle, leading to so-called "const
> poisoning" where many, many APIs need to be changed before everything would
> again work.
The poisoning will not break any users of the API, though, since they
can pass
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> - SIGABRT is not handled
Why not? That seems useful for debugging assertion failures, although
most C code in Python raises exceptions rather than asserting.
I'm guessing it's because it aborts the process after printing the
backtrace. Y
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> Ugh, I can't be the only one who finds these special cases to be a little
> nasty?
> Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
> Alex
+1, I don't think nailing down a few builtins is that helpful for
optimizing Python. Anyone att
Congratulations! Excellent work.
Reid
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> ===
> PyPy 1.4: Ouroboros in practice
> ===
>
> We're pleased to announce the 1.4 release of PyPy. This is a major
> breakthrough
> in our
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:33 AM, vinay.sajip
> wrote:
>>
>> + .. attribute:: stack_info
>> +
>> + Stack frame information (where available) from the bottom of the stack
>> + in the current thread, up to and including the stack fr
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>> I think the panic is a bit of an overreaction. PEP 384 has still not
>> been accepted, and I haven't seen a final decision about freezing the
>> ABI in 3.2.
>
> Not sure where
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> I also suggest that, instead of uploading the patch to Rietveld
>> yourself, you can ask the submitter to do it.
>
> That adds another step.
>
> Let me repeat me original question: Would it be feasible to add a [view]
> button that I could cli
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM, stefan brunthaler
wrote:
>> I'm guessing from your comments below about cross-module inlining that
>> you generate a separate .c file with the specialized opcode bodies and
>> then call through to them via a table of function pointers indexed by
>> opcode, but I c
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:58 AM, stefan brunthaler
wrote:
>> Do I understand correctly that you modify the byte code of modules/functions
>> at runtime?
>>
> Yes. Quickening is runtime only optimization technique that rewrites
> instructions from a generic instruction to an optimized derivative
>
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM, wrote:
>> I'm very amused by all the jokes about turning python into perl, but there's
>> a good idea here that doesn't actually require that...
>
> No, there isn't. And both '&' and '|' are valid
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 22.07.2010 14:12, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>> So, I thought there wasn't a difference in performance for this use case
>>> (which is compiling a lot of regexes and matching most of them
Hi python-dev,
I've been working through a patch to add timeouts to the subprocess module:
http://bugs.python.org/issue5673
It's gotten a fair amount of review, and I'm planning to commit it.
Since it's my first contribution, I'm taking Georg's suggestion to
send mail to python-dev to see if anyo
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Tim Golden wrote:
> Brett suggested that
> the Unladen Swallow merge to trunk was waiting for some work to complete
> on the JIT compiler and Georg, as release manager for 3.2, confirmed that
> Unladen Swallow would not be merged before 3.3.
Yeah, this has slipped
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:43 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Unfortunately (?) the question also revealed a lack of understanding
> of a fairly basic concept. IIUC, he wanted to know how Python
> handles SIGKILL, when the hole point of SIGKILL is that you cannot
> handle it. So he shouldn't have be
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> As Terry wrote in the beginning of this thread, Lib/test/test_trace.py
> currently tests the sys.settrace module, so the tests of trace.py
> should find a new home. Does Lib/test/test_trace_module.py make sense
> or is something else prefera
Usual disclaimer: python-dev is for the development *of* python, not
*with*. See python-list, etc.
That said, def declares new functions or methods, so you can't put
arbitrary expressions in there like type(f).__mul__ .
You can usually assign to things like that though, but in this case
you run
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> MRAB's module offers a superset of re's features rather than a subset
> though, so once it has had more of a chance to bake on PyPI it may be
> worth another look.
I feel like the new module is designed to replace the current re
module, and s
Thanks for the support!
Georg Brandl authorized my SSH keys for SVN access.
Reid
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:23:13 +0000
>> Reid Kleckner wrote:
>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
> Also, the current right click edit action on Windows is to only open an
> edit window; no shell. And it uses the subprocess! So, some of the
> comments on this thread are not up to date.
>
> The reason that bug languished for two years was
Hey all,
I'm porting some fixes for threading.py that we applied to unladen-swallow:
http://bugs.python.org/issue6643
We ran into these bizarre race conditions involving fork + threads
while running the test suite with a background JIT compilation thread.
I really wish we weren't trying to suppo
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:00 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I'm trying to test out a patch to add a timeout in subprocess.py on
>> Windows, so I need to build Python with Visual Studio. The docs say
>> the files in PCBuild/ work with VC 9 and newer.
>
> Which docs did you look at specifically th
Hey folks,
I'm trying to test out a patch to add a timeout in subprocess.py on
Windows, so I need to build Python with Visual Studio. The docs say
the files in PCBuild/ work with VC 9 and newer. I downloaded Visual
C++ 2010 Express, and it needs to convert the .vcproj files into
.vcxproj files,
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Brian Quinlan wrote:
> Keep in mind that this library magic is consistent with the library magic
> that the threading module does - unless the user sets Thread.daemon to True,
> the interpreter does *not* exit until the thread does.
Is there a compelling to make t
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> However, attaining the (sensible) behaviour Colin is requesting when such
> top level variable references exist would actually be somewhat tricky.
> Considering Guido's suggestion to treat two argument exec like a function
> rather than a cla
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
wrote:
> I don't know what benchmarks were used to write dictnotes.txt, but moving
> forward I would recommend implementing your changes on trunk (i.e., Python
> 2.x) and running the Unladen Swallow Benchmarks, which you can get from the
> link be
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Reid Kleckner mit.edu> writes:
>>
>> I think you're right about the number of collisions, though. CPython
>> dicts use a pretty low load factor (2/3) to keep collision counts
>> down. One of the major
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:57 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Any other advice would also be helpful.
>
> I may be missing the point, but ISTM that the assumption of this
> approach is that there are often collisions in the hash table. I think
> that assumption is false; at least, I recommend to va
Hey folks,
I was looking at tuning Python dicts for a data structures class final
project. I've looked through Object/dictnotes.txt, and obviously
there's already a large body of work on this topic. My idea was to
alter dict collision resolution as described in the hopscotch hashing
paper[1]. I
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> If you can prove that making locals() (or its replacement) writable doesn't
> complicate the interpreter core too much, then why not. Otherwise -1 :-)
I think writable locals would significantly complicate the job of
people trying to optimiz
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> Python itself is a highly dynamic language and not amenable to direct
> compilation. Instead modern just-in-time compiler technology is seen as the
> way to improve Python performance. Projects that are doing this are PyPy and
> Unladen Swall
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> Just as reminder of the process we have in place for such changes:
> Please discuss any major breakage on python-dev before checking in
> the patch.
>
>
> I'm aware this is a good idea. I simply didn't consider this
I don't think this will help you solve your problem, but one thing
we've done in unladen swallow is to hack PyType_Modified to invalidate
our own descriptor caches. We may eventually want to extend that into
a callback interface, but it probably will never be considered an API
that outside code sh
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:51 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> You lost me there :-)
>
> I am not familiar with how U-S actually implements the compilation
> step and was thinking of it working at the functions/methods level
> and based on input/output parameter type information.
Yes, but it's more like
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Collin Winter wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be possible to have the compiler approach work
>> in three phases in order to reduce the memory footprint and
>> startup time hit, ie.
>>
>> 1. run an instrumented Python interpreter to collect all
>> the needed compiler infor
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> Your reasonable argument is making it difficult for me to be irrational
> about this.
No problem. :)
> This begs the question - assuming a patch that clones the behavior of win32
> for multiprocessing, would the default continue to be forkin
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Instead, we should aim to make Python fork-safe. If the primary concern
> is that locks get inherited, we should change the Python locks so that
> they get auto-released on fork (unless otherwise specified on lock
> creation). This may sou
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> I don't disagree there; but then again, I haven't seen this issue
> arise (in my own code)/no bug reports/no test cases that show this to
> be a consistent issue. I'm perfectly OK with being wrong, I'm just
> leery to tearing out the internals
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> That still leaves the question of what to do with __file__ (for which
> even the solution in the PEP isn't particularly clean). Perhaps the
> thing to do there is to have __file__ always point to the source file
> and introduce a __file_cached
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> So, just to extend the question a little (or reiterate, it may be that
> this is already covered and I didn't fully understand):
>
> On Windows, would a C extension author be able to distribute a single
> binary (bdist_wininst/bdist_msi) which w
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
> Also related to reduced code size with C++ I was wondering whether or not
> anyone has explored using the ability of some toolchains to remove unused
> code and data? In GCC this can be enabled by compiling with
> '-ffunction-sections' and '-f
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> To what extent would it be possible to use (conditionally) use full
> ahead-of-time compilation as well as JIT?
It would be possible to do this, but it doesn't have nearly the same
benefits as JIT compilation, as Alex mentioned. You could d
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> How large is the LLVM shared library? One surprising data point is that the
>> binary is much larger than some of the memory footprint measurements given in
>> the PEP.
>
> Could it be that you need to strip the binary, or otherwise remo
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Collin Winter wrote:
>> P.S. Is there any chance of LLVM doing something like tracing JITs?
>> Those seem somewhat more promising to me (even though I understand
>> they're quite hard in the face of Python features like stack frames).
>
> Yes, you could implement a
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Jake McGuire wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Collin Winter
> wrote:
>> Profiling
>> -
>>
>> Unladen Swallow integrates with oProfile 0.9.4 and newer [#oprofile]_ to
>> support
>> assembly-level profiling on Linux systems. This means that oProf
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Floris Bruynooghe
wrote:
> I just compiled with the --without-llvm option and see that the
> binary, while only an acceptable 4.1M, still links with libstdc++. Is
> it possible to completely get rid of the C++ dependency if this option
> is used? Introducing a C+
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> 32-bit; gcc 4.0.3
>>
>> +-+---+---+--+ |
>> Binary size | CPython 2.6.4 | CPython 3.1.1 | Unladen Swallow r988 |
>> +=+===+===+=
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> If CPython development moves to distributed hg, the notion of 'blessed'
> branches (other than the PSF release branch) will, as I understand it,
> become somewhat obsolete. If you make a branch publicly available, anyone
> can grab it and merge
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> On one hand, you may not want to call the user's atexit handlers
>> multiple times from different processes if they have externally
>> visible effects. On the other hand, people seem to assume that
>> Py_Finalize will be called at process
Hi all,
I'm working on http://bugs.python.org/issue6642 for unladen swallow
(because it happens to bite us in a weird way), and Jeff Yasskin told
me to ask python-dev what the proper behavior should be at exit from
the child process of a fork from a spawned thread.
Right now, it seems that there
54 matches
Mail list logo
