Gregory P. Smith added the comment:
This caused a regression in behavior. compileall.compile_dir()'s ddir=
parameter no longer does the right thing for any subdirectories.
https://bugs.python.org/issue39769
--
nosy: +gregory.p.smith
___
Python
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 9efefcab817e by Brett Cannon in branch 'default':
Issue #16104: Allow compileall to do parallel bytecode compilation.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/9efefcab817e
--
nosy: +python-dev
___
Python tracker
Brett Cannon added the comment:
Thanks for the patch, Claudiu!
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: commit review - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
Claudiu Popa added the comment:
Thank you for committing it. :-)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Claudiu Popa added the comment:
If there is nothing left to do for this patch, can it be committed?
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file36590/16104.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
assignee: - brett.cannon
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Updated patch according to the python-dev thread:
- processes renamed to workers
- `workers` defaults to 1
- When `workers` is equal to 0, then `os.cpu_count` will be used
- When `workers` 1, multiple processes will be used
- When `workers` == 1, run normally
Jim Jewett added the comment:
Trying to put bounds on the disagreements. Does anyone disagree with any of
the following:
(1) compileall currently runs single-threaded in a single process.
(2) This enhancement intends to allow parallelization by process.
(3) Users MAY need to express
Changes by Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr:
--
nosy: -pitrou
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Added a new patch with improvements suggested by Jim. Thanks!
I removed the handling of processes=1, because it can still be useful: having a
background worker which processes the files received from _walk_dir. Also, it
checks that compile_dir receives a
Changes by Steven D'Aprano steve+pyt...@pearwood.info:
--
nosy: -steven.daprano
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Add new patch with fixes proposed by Berker Peksag. Thanks for the review.
Hopefully, this is the last iteration of this patch.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file35055/issue16104_10.patch
___
Python tracker
Changes by Claudiu.Popa pcmantic...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file35056/issue16104_11.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Jim Jewett added the comment:
ProcessPoolExecutor already defaults to using cpu_count if max_workers is None.
Consistency with that might be useful too. (and a default of 1 to mean
nothing in parallel is sensible...)
--
nosy: +Jim.Jewett
___
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Added a new version of the patch which incorporates suggestions made by Jim.
Thanks for the review!
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file35018/issue16104_8.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu:
--
title: Use multiprocessing in compileall script - Compileall script: add
option to use multiple cores
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
16 matches
Mail list logo
