Hi Brett,
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:33:19AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
Thanks for the link, Armin. Since you guys don't have the import
restrictions the CPython version would have and just have different coding
needs for RPython obviously I can't just do a blind copy. But I will
definitely
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 branch.
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 the 2.3
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
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
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 support
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
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 is
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. For
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 decision
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 interpreters.
So
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 am
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
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 Visual Studio
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 with the
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
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.I
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 on
18 matches
Mail list logo
