[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Mark Shannon]

Mark Shannon  added the comment:

In general, it is hard to define what is an optimization, and what is part of 
the compiler.

The original request was to disable optimizations that changed observable 
behavior w.r.t. line numbers.

All optimizations now respect line numbers, so proposed mechanism would be 
pointless.

--
resolution:  -> rejected
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Mark Shannon]

Mark Shannon  added the comment:

I think this can finally be closed.
A mere 12 years after it was opened :)

PEP 626 specifies what the correct behavior is, regardless of whether 
optimizations are turned on or off, so there is no point in a no-optimize 
option.
The compiler is fast enough that it is never worth turning off, even for 
iterate development.

If the bytecode optimizer produces incorrect or inefficient code for a 
particular example, please file a bug report for that case, and assign me.

--
nosy: +Mark.Shannon

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Pablo Galindo Salgado]

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado :


--
pull_requests: +21127
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/22027

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ned Batchelder]

Ned Batchelder  added the comment:

If there is any doubt that this affects people, it was reported *again* against 
coverage.py today: https://github.com/nedbat/coveragepy/issues/1025

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Pablo Galindo Salgado]

Pablo Galindo Salgado  added the comment:

I will pick this up from Victor's last patch

--
nosy: +pablogsal

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor  added the comment:

>  There are different optimizations on different levels (AST, bytecode 
> generation, peepholer), would be nice to control them separately. This means 
> that we should pass a bitset to the compiler.

What's the use case for enabling some AST optimizations but disable bytecode 
generation optimizations?

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Arthur Goldberg]

Arthur Goldberg  added the comment:

Appreciate you working on this Serhiy and Victor!

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Serhiy Storchaka]

Serhiy Storchaka  added the comment:

There are different optimizations on different levels (AST, bytecode 
generation, peepholer), would be nice to control them separately. This means 
that we should pass a bitset to the compiler.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor  added the comment:

My PR 13600 works as expected.

I simplified attached continue.py: see attached traceme.py.

Output with optimizations
---
$ ./python traceme.py  
  6   0 LOAD_CONST   1 (0)
  2 STORE_FAST   0 (a)

  7   4 LOAD_GLOBAL  0 (range)
  6 LOAD_CONST   2 (3)
  8 LOAD_CONST   3 (4)
 10 CALL_FUNCTION2
 12 GET_ITER
>>   14 FOR_ITER30 (to 46)
 16 STORE_FAST   1 (n)

  8  18 LOAD_FAST1 (n)
 20 LOAD_CONST   4 (2)
 22 BINARY_MODULO
 24 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE   14

  9  26 LOAD_FAST1 (n)
 28 LOAD_CONST   2 (3)
 30 BINARY_MODULO
 32 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE   14

 10  34 LOAD_FAST0 (a)
 36 LOAD_CONST   5 (1)
 38 INPLACE_ADD
 40 STORE_FAST   0 (a)

 11  42 JUMP_ABSOLUTE   14
 44 JUMP_ABSOLUTE   14
>>   46 LOAD_CONST   0 (None)
 48 RETURN_VALUE
 --- modulename: traceme, funcname: func
traceme.py(6): a = 0
traceme.py(7): for n in range(3, 4):
traceme.py(8): if n % 2:
traceme.py(9): if n % 3:
traceme.py(7): for n in range(3, 4):
---

Output without optimizations (-X noopt):
---
$ ./python -X noopt traceme.py  
  6   0 LOAD_CONST   1 (0)
  2 STORE_FAST   0 (a)

  7   4 LOAD_GLOBAL  0 (range)
  6 LOAD_CONST   2 (3)
  8 LOAD_CONST   3 (4)
 10 CALL_FUNCTION2
 12 GET_ITER
>>   14 FOR_ITER30 (to 46)
 16 STORE_FAST   1 (n)

  8  18 LOAD_FAST1 (n)
 20 LOAD_CONST   4 (2)
 22 BINARY_MODULO
 24 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE   44

  9  26 LOAD_FAST1 (n)
 28 LOAD_CONST   2 (3)
 30 BINARY_MODULO
 32 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE   42

 10  34 LOAD_FAST0 (a)
 36 LOAD_CONST   5 (1)
 38 INPLACE_ADD
 40 STORE_FAST   0 (a)

 11 >>   42 JUMP_ABSOLUTE   14
>>   44 JUMP_ABSOLUTE   14
>>   46 LOAD_CONST   0 (None)
 48 RETURN_VALUE
 --- modulename: traceme, funcname: func
traceme.py(6): a = 0
traceme.py(7): for n in range(3, 4):
traceme.py(8): if n % 2:
traceme.py(9): if n % 3:
traceme.py(11): continue
traceme.py(7): for n in range(3, 4):
---


The difference on the trace is that using -X noopt, "traceme.py(11):
 continue" line is traced as expected.

The difference on the bytecode is that jumps are no longer optimized using -X 
noopt:

* Optimized:

  "32 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE   14"

* Not optimized:

  "32 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE   42"
  ">>   42 JUMP_ABSOLUTE   14"

The peephole optimizer replaces a jump to an unconditional jump with a jump 
directly to the target of the unconditional jump.

I documented peephole optimizations in my reimplementation in pure Python:
https://bytecode.readthedocs.io/en/latest/peephole.html#optimizations
(I'm not sure that it's up to date, but it should give you an idea of which 
kinds of optimizations are implemented.)

--
Added file: https://bugs.python.org/file48371/traceme.py

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor  added the comment:

I proposed PR 13600 which is based PR 9693, but more complete and up to date.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

Change by STINNER Victor :


--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +13506
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/13600

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ned Batchelder]

Ned Batchelder  added the comment:

FWIW, Yury started a pull request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/9693

--
keywords:  -patch

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Brett Cannon]

Brett Cannon  added the comment:

If someone can get a PR into a state that is acceptable, then this can be 
resolved, Arthur. But at this point that hasn't occurred.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Arthur Goldberg]

Arthur Goldberg  added the comment:

This issue is well into the 2nd decade of debate.

Who has the power to effect this change?

Happy New Year
Arthur

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Serhiy Storchaka]

Serhiy Storchaka  added the comment:

Note that disabling bytecode optimizations will not help to solve other 
problems with the coverity tool in 3.8: issue34705 and issue34876.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Yury Selivanov]

Change by Yury Selivanov :


--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +9080
stage:  -> patch review

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Yury Selivanov]

Yury Selivanov  added the comment:

> I would suggest -X noopt and use "noopt" in .pyc filenames. That's what I 
> proposed in my PEP 511.

Sounds good to me.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Yury Selivanov]

Yury Selivanov  added the comment:

Having properly working coverage tooling is simply invaluable to pretty much 
every serious Python user.  I support Ned's idea of adding an option to disable 
peephole optimizer (and similar other optimization passes).  Why is this even 
debated?

--
nosy: +yselivanov

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Arthur Goldberg]

Arthur Goldberg  added the comment:

I'm another user of Ned's coverage tool. Our team at the Mount Sinai School of 
Medicine is building tools to model the dynamics of biochemistry inside 
individual cells. Our short term aims are to better understanding microbiology 
and model microorganisms so they can be engineered to more effectively produce 
drugs and do other industrial tasks. Long term, we seek to build genetically 
personalized models of human cells which can be used to improve the medical 
care of cancer and other illnesses. We're funded by several agencies of the 
federal government. Our field is called whole-cell modeling.

We use Python because it provides a wide array of powerful tools we can reuse 
to reduce our development time, enables us to rapidly prototype software to 
test and advance our modeling ideas, and is fun to program. Using git, pip, 
coverage, GitHub, CircleCI, Docker and other tools we've built a robust 
development environment that enables multiple people to contribute to advancing 
our tools for whole-cell modeling. We strongly emphasize software engineering 
because the data we use is large, incomplete and inconsistent, and our models 
are complex and difficult to train, verify and validate. We want to have a high 
level of confidence in our tested code so that if we have trouble with a model 
we can focus on checking the data and understanding the model design. Coverage 
testing is an important part of our software engineering. We test both line and 
branch coverage.

While working today on our simulator I found code that should have been fully 
covered except for a # pragma no cover, but was not fully covered. I reported 
it to Ned (https://github.com/nedbat/coveragepy/issues/697) who reproduced it 
in a simpler example and pointed out that this "Add mechanism to disable 
optimizations" issue contributed to the problem.

I realize that approximately 0.0% of Python users work on whole-cell modeling, 
which diminishes the importance of this use case. But Python is widely used in 
computational biomedicine, which represents many more users. Case in point -- 
I've created and teach a course in Biomedical Software Engineering which uses 
Python and teaches coverage testing to masters, PhD, and MD/PhD students.

We'd appreciate your help improving Ned's coverage tool. You can learn more 
about us at http://www.karrlab.org/ and https://github.com/KarrLab.

Regards
Arthur

--
nosy: +ArthurGoldberg

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ned Batchelder]

Ned Batchelder  added the comment:

Serhiy: thanks for the fuller story about the optimizations in place now.  I'll 
repeat my earlier plea: providing a way to disable optimization is beneficial 
for tooling like coverage.py, and also for helping us to ensure that the 
optimizer is working correctly.

I doubt anyone commenting here would be happy with a C compiler that optimized 
with no off-switch.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Serhiy Storchaka]

Serhiy Storchaka  added the comment:

Few different optimizations work together here. Folding constants at the AST 
level allows to eliminate the constant expression statement in the code 
generation stage. This makes 'continue' a first statement in the 'if' body. 
Boolean expressions optimizations (performed in the code generation stage now) 
creates a conditional jump to the start of the 'if' body (which is 'continue' 
now). If 'continue' is not nested in 'try' or 'with' blocks, it is compiled to 
an unconditional jump. And finally the jump optimization in the peepholer 
retargets the conditional jump from the unconditional jump to the start of the 
loop.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ned Batchelder]

Ned Batchelder  added the comment:

Folding constants won't affect control flow.  The important thing here is to 
disable optimizing away jumps to jumps.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Serhiy Storchaka]

Serhiy Storchaka  added the comment:

> If anyone has needed a workaround in the past 9 years and hasn't yet found 
> one:

This no longer works in 3.7 due to folding constants at the AST level. :-)

--
nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
versions: +Python 3.8 -Python 3.6

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Alex Gaynor]

Alex Gaynor  added the comment:

If anyone has needed a workaround in the past 9 years and hasn't yet found one: 
https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/3968/commits/3b585f803891e750d0ca5861b5a29e16b779bc16

--
nosy: +alex

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[diana]

Changes by diana :


--
nosy: +diana

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Sergey B Kirpichev]

Changes by Sergey B Kirpichev :


--
nosy: +Sergey.Kirpichev

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor added the comment:

I would suggest -X noopt and use "noopt" in .pyc filenames. That's what I 
proposed in my PEP 511.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor added the comment:

Since the discussion restarted, I reopen the issue and assigned it to Python 
3.6. Maybe it's too late for such tiny change?

--
resolution: rejected -> 
status: closed -> open
versions: +Python 3.6 -Python 3.5

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[irdb]

Changes by irdb :


--
nosy: +irdb

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Brett Cannon]

Brett Cannon added the comment:

I believe the python-ideas thread on this topic came to the conclusion that a 
-X flag -- e.g., `-X DisableOptimizations` -- would be a good way to turn off 
all optimizations. The flag could then either blindly set 
sys.dont_write_bytecode to True or set sys.flags.optimize to -1 in which case a 
bytecode file named e.g. foo.cpython-36.opt--1.pyc would be written which won't 
lead to any conflicts (I wish we could use False for sys.flags.optimize but 
that has the same values as 0 which is the default optimization level).

Does one of those proposal seems acceptable to everyone? Do people like Ned who 
asked for this feature have a preference as to whether the bytecode is or is 
not written out to a .pyc file?

--
nosy: +brett.cannon

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Pedro Gimeno]

Pedro Gimeno added the comment:

I consider peephole optimization when no optimization was requested a bug.

Documentation for -O says it Turns on basic optimizations. Peephole 
optimization is a basic optimization, yet it is performed even when no basic 
optimizations were requested.

No need to add a switch. Just don't optimize if not requested.

--
nosy: +pgimeno

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor added the comment:

 Have you considered whether the genererated PYC files need a different magic 
 number or some other way to indicate that they aren't production code?

Would it make sense to use a different sys.implementation.cache_tag? For 
example, the tag si currently cpython-35. We can use cpython-35P when 
peephole optimizations are disabled. So you can have separated .pyc and .pyo 
files and the disabling peephole optimizations is compatible with -O and -OO 
command line options.

--
nosy: +haypo

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor added the comment:

Oh, another option to solve the .pyc file issue is to *not* write .pyc files if 
the peephole optimizer is disabled. If you disable an optimizer, you probably 
don't care of performances.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ned Batchelder]

Ned Batchelder added the comment:

I thought we were discussing this on Python-Ideas?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ethan Furman]

Changes by Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us:


--
nosy: +ethan.furman

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Raymond Hettinger]

Raymond Hettinger added the comment:

[Victor]
 Oh, another option to solve the .pyc file issue is to *not* 
 write .pyc files if the peephole optimizer is disabled. 
 If you disable an optimizer, you probably don't care of performances.

That is an inspired idea and would help address one of the possible problems 
that could be caused by a new on/off switch.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ned Batchelder]

Ned Batchelder added the comment:

Python-Ideas thread started: 
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-May/027893.html

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Raymond Hettinger]

Raymond Hettinger added the comment:

Ned, why is your proposal to turn-off ALL peephole transformations with 
COMMAND-LINE switch?

* Why not just turn-off the jump-to-jump?  Do you really need to disable 
constant folding and other transformations?

* Have you explored whether the peephole.c code can be changed to indicate the 
continue-statement was visited?

* Why does this have to be a command-line setting rather than a flag or 
environment variable settable by coverage.py?

* Is there some less radical way the coverage.py can be taught to make the 
continue-statement as visited?

* Are you requesting that optimization constraints be placed on all of the 
implementations of Python (Jython, PyPy, and IronPython) to make coverage.py 
perfect?

* Do you want to place limits on what can be done by Victor's proposed AST 
tranformations which will occur upstream from the peepholer and will make 
higher level semantically-neutral transformations *prior* to code generation.

* Have you considered whether the genererated PYC files need a different magic 
number or some other way to indicate that they aren't production code?

* If coverage.py produces a report on different code than the production run, 
doesn't that undermine some of the confidence the meaningfulness of the report?

In other words, are you sure that you're making the right request and that it 
is really worth it?  Do we really have to open this can of worms to make 
coverage.py happy?

--
versions: +Python 3.5 -Python 3.4

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Raymond Hettinger]

Raymond Hettinger added the comment:

There has been no activity on this for several year.  Marking as rejected for 
the reasons originally listed.

--
resolution:  - rejected
status: open - closed

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Ned Batchelder]

Ned Batchelder added the comment:

Raymond, thanks for keeping us honest!

I am still hoping to convince people that this is a good idea.  I think Guido's 
+1 (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-December/123099.html) 
should help in that regard.

Part of your reason for today's rejection is the lack of activity.  Can I 
assume that with a patch you would be supportive?

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Trip Volpe]

Trip Volpe added the comment:

I found this issue just the other day while researching why we were getting 
false gaps in our test coverage reports (using Ned's coverage module, natch!). 
I agree that this seems like a fairly minor nuisance, but it's a nuisance that 
anybody who has tests and measures test coverage will run into sooner or later 
-- and that's *everybody*, right?

I think some kind of fix ought to be discussed. After all, it should be 
possible to have accurate coverage results is a proposition that seems fairly 
reasonable to me.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Florent Xicluna]

Changes by Florent Xicluna florent.xicl...@gmail.com:


--
nosy: +flox

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Terry J. Reedy]

Terry J. Reedy added the comment:

Trip, see msg140290, which was ignored.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Trip Volpe]

Changes by Trip Volpe t...@flowroute.com:


--
nosy: +Trip.Volpe

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Jean-Paul Calderone]

Changes by Jean-Paul Calderone jean-p...@hybridcluster.com:


--
nosy:  -exarkun

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Barry A. Warsaw]

Changes by Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org:


--
nosy: +barry

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe]

Changes by Tshepang Lekhonkhobe tshep...@gmail.com:


--
nosy: +tshepang
versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.3

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue2506] Add mechanism to disable optimizations

[Éric Araujo]

Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:


--
title: Add mechanism to diasable optimizations - Add mechanism to disable 
optimizations

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com