Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> So, I think for your plan to work, you would have to eliminate reference
> counting, in order to bring the lock overhead down to a manageable level.
There's a possibility it wouldn't be atrociously bad.
Seems like it would only add the 3 instructions or
whatever overhead
Martin Devera wrote:
> As I've written in "Big reader lock" paragraph of the original proposal, these
> objects could be handled by not blocking in read path
But as was just pointed out, because of refcounting,
there's really no such thing as read-only access to
an object. What *looks* like read-
Martin Devera wrote:
> Regarding implementation, I wanted to look for some opinions before starting
> to
> implement something as big as this patch. Probably someone can look and say,
> hey
> it is stupit, you forgot that FILL_IN ... ;-)
If I understand correctly, your suggestion for avoidi
On 9/18/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Armin Rigo wrote:> My (limited) understanding of the motivation for relative imports is> that they are only here as a transitional feature. Fully-absolute> imports are the official future.
Guido does seem to have a dislike for relative imports,but
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Armin Rigo wrote:
> > there
> > is no clean way from a test module 'foo.bar.test.test_hello' to import
> > 'foo.bar.hello': the top-level directory must first be inserted into
> > sys.path magically.
>
> I've felt for a long time that problems like this
> w
Armin Rigo wrote:
> My (limited) understanding of the motivation for relative imports is
> that they are only here as a transitional feature. Fully-absolute
> imports are the official future.
Guido does seem to have a dislike for relative imports,
but I don't really understand why. The usefulnes
Martin Devera schrieb:
> It is based on assumption that an object is typicaly used by single
> thread. You must lock it anyway just for case if another thread steps
> on it. The idea is that each object is "owned" by a thread. Owner can
> use its objects without locking. If a thread wants to use f
At 07:08 PM 9/18/2006 +0200, Martin Devera wrote:
> >> So that you are right. It is not RCU. It only uses similar technique
> as RCU
> >> uses for free-ing old copy of data.
> >>
> >> It is based on assumption that an object is typicaly used by single
> thread.
> >
> > Which thread owns builtins?
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> People are well-advised to accept the installer's default directory.
>
> That's very true, but difficult to communicate. Too many people
> actually
> complain about that, and some even bring reasonable arguments (such
> as the ACL in c:\ being too permissive for a softwar
On 9/18/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Neal Norwitz]
> >> I'm getting a crash when running test_builtin and test_calendar (at
> >> least) with gcc 4.1.1 on amd64. It's happening in pymalloc, though I
> >> don't know what the cause is. I thought I tested with gcc 4.1 before,
> >> but
>> So that you are right. It is not RCU. It only uses similar technique as RCU
>> uses for free-ing old copy of data.
>>
>> It is based on assumption that an object is typicaly used by single thread.
>
> Which thread owns builtins? Or module dictionaries? If two threads are
> running the same f
[Neal Norwitz]
>> I'm getting a crash when running test_builtin and test_calendar (at
>> least) with gcc 4.1.1 on amd64. It's happening in pymalloc, though I
>> don't know what the cause is. I thought I tested with gcc 4.1 before,
>> but probably would have been in debug mode.
Neil, in context i
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:06:47 +0200, Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Martin Devera schrieb:
>>> RCU like locking
>>> Solution I have in mind is similar to RCU. In Python we have quiscent
>>> state - when a thread returns to main loop of interpreter.
>>
>> Ther
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Martin Devera schrieb:
>> RCU like locking
>> Solution I have in mind is similar to RCU. In Python we have quiscent
>> state - when a thread returns to main loop of interpreter.
>
> There might be a terminology problem here. RCU is read-copy-update,
> right? I fail to
Martin Devera schrieb:
> RCU like locking
> Solution I have in mind is similar to RCU. In Python we have quiscent
> state - when a thread returns to main loop of interpreter.
There might be a terminology problem here. RCU is read-copy-update,
right? I fail to see the copy (copy data structure
Tim Peters schrieb:
> These are the MS docs for cmd.exe's inscrutable quoting rules after /C:
>
> """
> If /C or /K is specified, then the remainder of the command line after
> the switch is processed as a command line, where the following logic is
> used to process quote (") characters:
>
>
Jean-Paul Calderone schrieb:
> You can find the quoting/dequoting rules used by cmd.exe documented on msdn:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vclang/html/_pluslang_Parsing_C.2b2b_.Command.2d.Line_Arguments.asp
>
> Interpreting them is something of a challenge (m
Hello,
as someone has written in FAQ, sometimes someone starts a thread about
finer grained locking in Python.
Ok here is one.
I don't want to start a flamewar. I only seek suggestions and constructive
critic. I have some ideas whose are new in this context (I believe) and
I only wanted to make t
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
> I'm getting a crash when running test_builtin and test_calendar (at
> least) with gcc 4.1.1 on amd64. It's happening in pymalloc, though I
> don't know what the cause is. I thought I tested with gcc 4.1 before,
> but probably would have been in debug mode.
Can't really ch
Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
> I've been playing with the new features and there's one thing about
> the new relative import that I find a little strange and I'm not sure
> this was intended...
>
> When you do a from . import xxx, it will always fail if you're in a
> top-level module, and when executing
Hi Fabio,
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 03:38:42PM -0300, Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
> I've been playing with the new features and there's one thing about
> the new relative import that I find a little strange and I'm not sure
> this was intended...
My (limited) understanding of the motivation for relative
21 matches
Mail list logo
