Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

At 09:27 PM 7/23/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >On 7/23/06, Phillip J. Eby ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>one proxy plus one namechecker equals one capability. In other words, >>you could take the restricted interpreter, the proxy mechanism, and the >>namechecker and le

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

Joe Smith wrote: > Microsoft as a general rule, does not go after people distributing products > that Microsoft has labeled > free, even after Microsoft no longer distributes that product. But if the licence agreement technically forbids redistribution, it doesn't seem like a good idea to rely o

Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

On 7/23/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 11:07 PM 7/23/2006 +0100, David Hopwood wrote:>Phillip J. Eby wrote:[snip] Brett's securing_python.txt don't refer to or cite Zope in any way, butrather relies on broad and unsupported assertions about what can or can'tbe done with Python.  

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

Joe Smith wrote: > Microsoft as a general rule, does not go after people distributing > products that Microsoft has labeled free, even after Microsoft no > longer distributes that product. So the express editions will > continue to be available long into the future if 2005+1 does not have > a free

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

"Neil Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Trent Nelson: > >> I ended up playing around with Profile Guided Optimization, running >> ``python.exe pystones.py'' to collect call-graph data after >> python.exe/Python24.dll had been instrumented, then recompiling wit

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

"James Y Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Jul 23, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: >> I think Martin decided to keep VC71 (Visual Studio .NET 2003) for >> another >> release cycle. Given the impressive results of VC8 with PGO, and >> the fact >> that

Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

At 11:07 PM 7/23/2006 +0100, David Hopwood wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > At 01:00 PM 7/23/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > >>I obviously don't want to change the feel of Python, but if I have to > >>remove the constructor for code objects to prevent evil bytecode or > >>__subclasses__() fr

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

Trent Nelson: > I ended up playing around with Profile Guided Optimization, running > ``python.exe pystones.py'' to collect call-graph data after > python.exe/Python24.dll had been instrumented, then recompiling with the > optimizations fed back in. It'd be an idea to build a larger body of Py

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > that Visual Studio Express 2005 is free forever, I would hope as well for > the decision to be reconsidered. But is it freely redistributable forever? Or even now? I have the 2003 toolkit sitting on my disk, but I a

Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

Brett Cannon wrote: > On 7/23/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi David, hi Brett, >> >> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 02:18:48AM +0100, David Hopwood wrote: >> > If I understand correctly, the proposal is that any incompatible >> > changes to the language would apply only in "sandboxed" in

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

On Jul 23, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > I think Martin decided to keep VC71 (Visual Studio .NET 2003) for > another > release cycle. Given the impressive results of VC8 with PGO, and > the fact > that Visual Studio Express 2005 is free forever, I would hope as > well for > the dec

Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 01:00 PM 7/23/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>I obviously don't want to change the feel of Python, but if I have to >>remove the constructor for code objects to prevent evil bytecode or >>__subclasses__() from object to prevent poking around stuff, then so be >>it

Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

At 01:00 PM 7/23/2006 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >I obviously don't want to change the feel of Python, but if I have to >remove the constructor for code objects to prevent evil bytecode or >__subclasses__() from object to prevent poking around stuff, then so be >it. For this project, security i

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

Trent Nelson wrote: > Has anyone else built Python with Visual Studio 2005 and played around > with Profile Guided Optimization? Yes, there was some work at the recent Need for Speed sprint. Python 2.5 has a PCBuild8 directory (for VS 2005) with a specific project for PGO. > Results were interes

Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

On 7/23/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi David, hi Brett,On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 02:18:48AM +0100, David Hopwood wrote:> If I understand correctly, the proposal is that any incompatible changes> to the language would apply only in "sandboxed" interpreters. So there is > no reason why su

[Python-Dev] Socket Timeouts patch 1519025

I request a review of my patch (1519025) to get socket timeouts to work properly with errors and signals. I don't expect this patch would make it into 2.5, but perhaps it could be in 2.5.1, as it fixes a long-standing bug. I know that people are busy with getting 2.5 out the door, but it would be

[Python-Dev] Python 2.4, VS 2005 & Profile Guided Optmization

Hi, Has anyone else built Python with Visual Studio 2005 and played around with Profile Guided Optimization? I had to build Python from source w/ VS 2005 as I had a few .pyd's built with VS 2005 that I wanted to load; I ended up playing around with Profile Guided Optimization, running ``python.ex

Re: [Python-Dev] Document performance requirements?

Armin Rigo wrote: > I think that O-wise the current CPython situation should be documented > as a "minimal requirement" for implementations of the language, with > just one exception: the well-documented "don't rely on this" hack in > 2.4 to make repeated 'str += str' amortized linear, for which t

Re: [Python-Dev] new security doc using object-capabilities

Hi David, hi Brett, On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 02:18:48AM +0100, David Hopwood wrote: > If I understand correctly, the proposal is that any incompatible changes > to the language would apply only in "sandboxed" interpreters. So there is > no reason why support for these couldn't go into the main bran