Re: [Python-Dev] patching asyncore and asynchat
> From: "Giampaolo Rodola'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I remembered right now that there's a patch pending which should be > included in the trunk before solving issues related to py3k and/or > applying other changes: > http://bugs.python.org/issue1736190 > Since it solves a lot of older and newer asyncore/chat issues I guess > you should work on that one instead of using the current asyncore/chat > versions available in the trunk. Those patches can't be applied directly to the py3k branch, where Guido asked me to work, so instead I've ported them and merged them with my patch where appropriate. This merged patch should address both py3k porting and the issues in raised in 1736190 http://bugs.python.org/issue1563 ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] builtin_format function code-spacing in bltinmodule.c
All, Not sure if this is significant or not but the spacing of the builtin_format function is not consistent with the rest of the bltinmodule.c file. Joseph Armbruster ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] builtin_format function code-spacing in bltinmodule.c
It is important; care to submit a fix? On Dec 11, 2007 11:08 AM, Joseph Armbruster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > Not sure if this is significant or not but the spacing of the builtin_format > function is not consistent with the > rest of the bltinmodule.c file. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).
Op vrijdag 07-12-2007 om 07:26 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Sean Reifschneider: > I would say that this is an optimization that helps a specific set of > platforms, including one that I think we really care about, the OLPC > which needs it for decreased battery use. Almost every laptop user would benefit from it, and even some desktop or server users might save on their electric power bill... -- Jan Claeys ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).
On Dec 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Op vrijdag 07-12-2007 om 07:26 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Sean > Reifschneider: > > I would say that this is an optimization that helps a specific set of > > platforms, including one that I think we really care about, the OLPC > > which needs it for decreased battery use. > > Almost every laptop user would benefit from it, and even some desktop or > server users might save on their electric power bill... Do you have data to support this claim? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).
Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Almost every laptop user would benefit from it, and even some desktop or >>server users might save on their electric power bill... > > > Do you have data to support this claim? Even if it doesn't save any power, using CPU unnecessarily is a bad thing for any application to do on a multitasking system. -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiem! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--+ ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] sliceobject Py_None step inquiry
I was playing around with sliceobject.c this evening and noticed the following behavior. If you slice with a step 0, you receive a ValueError but when you slice with a step of None, the step is set to 1. As an example, observe the following interactive session: >>> a = [1,2,3,4,5,6] >>> b = slice(0,5,None) >>> a[b] [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] >>> b = slice(0,5,0) >>> a[b] Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in ValueError: slice step cannot be zero >>> Within the code, it looks like Py_None performs a step of 1. Does it make sense to create a patch so that None and 0 behave the same in this respect? >>> a = [1,2,3,4,5,6] >>> b = slice(0,5,None) >>> a[b] Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in ValueError: slice step cannot be None >>> b = slice(0,5,0) >>> a[b] Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in ValueError: slice step cannot be zero >>> b = slice(0,5) >>> a[b] [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] >>> Joe ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] sliceobject Py_None step inquiry
I think that should not change. None is different than 0. It makes sense to use it as a "use the default value" kind of place holder. Silently using 1 when you pass 0 is a very different thing. Maybe the slice was calculated and the developer should know about it being 0, because in this case they really don't want a step of 1, or the calculation was broken. There are lots of reasons. On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Joseph Armbruster wrote: > > I was playing around with sliceobject.c this evening and noticed > the following > behavior. If you slice with a step 0, you receive a ValueError but > when you > slice with a step of None, the step is set to 1. As an example, > observe the > following interactive session: > a = [1,2,3,4,5,6] b = slice(0,5,None) a[b] > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] b = slice(0,5,0) a[b] > Traceback (most recent call last): >File "", line 1, in > ValueError: slice step cannot be zero > > Within the code, it looks like Py_None performs a step of 1. Does > it make > sense to create a patch so that None and 0 behave the same in this > respect? > a = [1,2,3,4,5,6] b = slice(0,5,None) a[b] > Traceback (most recent call last): >File "", line 1, in > ValueError: slice step cannot be None b = slice(0,5,0) a[b] > Traceback (most recent call last): >File "", line 1, in > ValueError: slice step cannot be zero b = slice(0,5) a[b] > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] > > > Joe > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ > ironfroggy%40socialserve.com ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).
On Dec 11, 2007 6:01 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Almost every laptop user would benefit from it, and even some desktop or > >>server users might save on their electric power bill... > > > > > > Do you have data to support this claim? > > Even if it doesn't save any power, using CPU unnecessarily > is a bad thing for any application to do on a multitasking > system. Hm, Apple and Microsoft don't seem to think so. They go out of their way to implement elaborate visual effects. Again -- is there any data about the cost of PyGTK's waking up 10x/sec on a typical laptop or server? (The XO is a special case because it has very different power management abilities.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).
Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Op vrijdag 07-12-2007 om 07:26 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Sean > > Reifschneider: > > > I would say that this is an optimization that helps a specific set of > > > platforms, including one that I think we really care about, the OLPC > > > which needs it for decreased battery use. > > > > Almost every laptop user would benefit from it, and even some desktop or > > server users might save on their electric power bill... > > Do you have data to support this claim? http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/powertop.php Some quotes plucked from that page: “In the screenshot, the laptop isn't doing very well. Most of the time the processor is in C2, and then only for an average of 4.4 milliseconds at a time. If the laptop spent most of its time in C4 for at least 20 milliseconds, the battery life would have been approximately one hour longer.” “When running a full GNOME desktop, 3 wakeups per second is achievable.” There's considerable effort being invested in the GNOME and Linux software stack at the moment to get rid of unnecessary CPU wakeups, and people are reporting significant improvements in laptop power consumption as a result of that work. -Andrew. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).
On Dec 11, 2007 11:00 PM, Andrew Bennetts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Op vrijdag 07-12-2007 om 07:26 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Sean > > > Reifschneider: > > > > I would say that this is an optimization that helps a specific set of > > > > platforms, including one that I think we really care about, the OLPC > > > > which needs it for decreased battery use. > > > > > > Almost every laptop user would benefit from it, and even some desktop or > > > server users might save on their electric power bill... > > > > Do you have data to support this claim? > > http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/powertop.php > > Some quotes plucked from that page: > > "In the screenshot, the laptop isn't doing very well. Most of the time the > processor is in C2, and then only for an average of 4.4 milliseconds at a > time. > If the laptop spent most of its time in C4 for at least 20 milliseconds, the > battery life would have been approximately one hour longer." > > "When running a full GNOME desktop, 3 wakeups per second is achievable." > > There's considerable effort being invested in the GNOME and Linux software > stack > at the moment to get rid of unnecessary CPU wakeups, and people are reporting > significant improvements in laptop power consumption as a result of that work. There's a known issues page on there, on the bottom of which is sealert, which used python, gtk, and threads. It has since been rewritten to not use threads, but it did exhibit the problem set_wakeup_fd fixes (at least provides our half of the fix.) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239893 -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
