There seem to be an inconsistency in the handling of local scopes in
exec. Consider the following code, which raises NameError if the '#' is
removed from the second last line.
block =
b = 'ok'
def f():
print(b)# raises NameError here
f()
scope = locals()#.copy()
exec(block, globals(),
configure is still generated by 2.61; would it be possible to update to 2.65?
The cr_lf issue mentioned in [1] seems to be resolved, ac_cr is now defined as
ac_cr=`echo X | tr X '\015'`
Proposing to
- fix some quoting in help strings and code snippets (#8509)
- update to autoconf 2.65
Le vendredi 23 avril 2010 17:26:59, Matthias Klose a écrit :
configure is still generated by 2.61; would it be possible to update to
2.65?
Yes, everything is possible. Open a new issue and write a patch ;-)
even if 2.7 already is in beta?
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to change the
Le jeudi 22 avril 2010 22:14:48, Sridhar Ratnakumar a écrit :
I am seeing random 403 errors when cloning the mercurial repositories of
Python.
I don't know if it is related, but I get errors from the bbreport tool:
--
$ python2.6 bbreport.py 3.x
Selected builders: 20 / 80 (branch:
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-04-16 - 2010-04-23)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
2665 open (+58) / 17664 closed (+31) / 20329 total (+89)
Open issues with patches: 1084
On Apr 23, 2010, at 05:44 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to change the build process after the
first beta. It would depend on the issue comments ;-)
OTOH, this doesn't seem like a new feature, so I think it should be okay.
Doubly so if it fixes a bug. wink
-Barry
Joachim B Haga wrote:
There seem to be an inconsistency in the handling of local scopes in
exec. Consider the following code, which raises NameError if the '#' is
removed from the second last line.
block =
b = 'ok'
def f():
print(b)# raises NameError here
f()
scope =
On 2010-04-22, at 10:55 PM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
-On [20100423 02:48], Sridhar Ratnakumar (sridh...@activestate.com) wrote:
Ok, I setup a cron job to maintain an internal mirror of the above
mentioned repositories in code.python.org. We'll do a hg pull -u
(equivalent to svn
We were having performance problems unpickling a large pickle file, we were
getting 170s running time (which was fine), but 1100mb memory usage. Memory
usage ought to have been about 300mb, this was happening because of memory
fragmentation, due to many unnecessary puts in the pickle stream.
We
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 09:21, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Apr 23, 2010, at 05:44 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to change the build process after the
first beta. It would depend on the issue comments ;-)
OTOH, this doesn't seem like a new feature,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:11, Dan Gindikin dgindi...@gmail.com wrote:
We were having performance problems unpickling a large pickle file, we were
getting 170s running time (which was fine), but 1100mb memory usage. Memory
usage ought to have been about 300mb, this was happening because of
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Dan Gindikin dgindi...@gmail.com wrote:
We were having performance problems unpickling a large pickle file, we were
getting 170s running time (which was fine), but 1100mb memory usage. Memory
usage ought to have been about 300mb, this was happening because of
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
Collin Winter wrote a simple optimization pass for cPickle in Unladen
Swallow [1]. The code reads through the stream and remove all the
unnecessary PUTs in-place.
I just noticed the code removes *all* PUT
Alexandre Vassalotti alexandre at peadrop.com writes:
Just put your code on bugs.python.org and I will take a look.
Thanks, I'll put it in there.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
Collin Winter wrote a simple optimization pass for cPickle in Unladen
Swallow [1]. The code reads through the stream and remove
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Collin Winter collinwin...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
Collin Winter wrote a simple optimization pass
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Collin Winter collinwin...@google.com wrote:
I should add that, adding the necessary bookkeeping to remove only
unused PUTs (instead of the current all-or-nothing scheme) should not
be hard. I'd watch out for a further performance/memory hit; the
pickling
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com writes:
Joachim B Haga wrote:
There seem to be an inconsistency in the handling of local scopes in
exec. [...]
The intermediate scope is searched for the variable name if the third
argument to exec() is locals(), but not if it is locals().copy().
What
Collin Winter collinwinter at google.com writes:
I should add that, adding the necessary bookkeeping to remove only
unused PUTs (instead of the current all-or-nothing scheme) should not
be hard. I'd watch out for a further performance/memory hit; the
pickling benchmarks in the benchmark suite
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Dan Gindikin dgindi...@gmail.com wrote:
This wouldn't help our use case, your code needs the entire pickle
stream to be in memory, which in our case would be about 475mb, this
is on top of the 300mb+ data structures that generated the pickle
stream.
In that
Alexandre Vassalotti alexandre at peadrop.com writes:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Dan Gindikin dgindikin at gmail.com
wrote:
This wouldn't help our use case, your code needs the entire pickle
stream to be in memory, which in our case would be about 475mb, this
is on top of the
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Dan Gindikin dgindi...@gmail.com wrote:
This wouldn't help our use case, your code needs the entire pickle
stream to be in memory, which in our case would be about 475mb, this
is
Collin Winter collinwinter at google.com writes:
I don't think it's possible in general to remove any PUTs if the
pickle is being written to a file-like object.
Does cPickle bytecode have some kind of NOP instruction?
You could keep track of which PUTs weren't necessary and zero them out at
Collin Winter collinwinter at google.com writes:
I don't think it's possible in general to remove any PUTs if the
pickle is being written to a file-like object. It is possible to reuse
a single Pickler to pickle multiple objects: this causes the Pickler's
memo dict to be shared between the
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Does cPickle bytecode have some kind of NOP instruction?
You could keep track of which PUTs weren't necessary and zero them out at the
end. It would be much cheaper than writing a whole other optimized stream.
For a large file, I'm not sure it is
Dan Gindikin dgindikin at gmail.com writes:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Does cPickle bytecode have some kind of NOP instruction?
You could keep track of which PUTs weren't necessary and zero them out at
the
end. It would be much cheaper than writing a whole other
26 matches
Mail list logo
