On Thursday 10 March 2011, Sturla Molden wrote:
As for InterlockedCompareExchange et al., MSDN says this: The
parameters for this function must be aligned on a 32-bit boundary;
bit != byte
Uli
**
Domino
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
As for the volatile marker - I believe the code is also
correct without it, since the owned field is only accessed
through initialization and Interlocked operations.
Furthermore, if the code weren't correct, volatile
On 3/10/2011 3:07 AM, Paul Du Bois wrote:
volatile considered harmful
http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
--
Scott Dial
sc...@scottdial.com
scod...@cs.indiana.edu
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
This behavior (which volatile aggravates) unfortunately makes it
even tougher to find race conditions. In my experience,
volatile should be avoided. I'd even bet money that some grumpy
person has written a volatile considered harmful essay.
I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to
Note that your interpretation would allow Python to distribute
arbitrarily licensed libraries and GPL programs to link with them.
That is surely not the intent of the authors of the GPL, and in the
past, the FSF has explicitly restricted the interpretation of system
library.
Note that it is
Den 10.03.2011 11:06, skrev Scott Dial:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
The important part here (forgive me for being a pedant) is that register
allocation of the (1) 'owned' field is actually unwanted, and (2)
Microsoft specify 'volatile' in calls
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Joao S. O. Bueno writes:
Any libraries commonly avaliable with a CPython instalation can be
considered as system libraries for GPL purposes - and so
this would fall in the system library exception as
Martin v. Löwis:
I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to this case, though.
The Microsoft API declares the parameter as a volatile*, indicating
that they consider it proper usage of the API to declare the storage
volatile.
The 'volatile' here is a modifier on the parameter and
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:18:22 +0100
Sturla Molden stu...@molden.no wrote:
Obvious usecases for volatile are:
- Implementation of a spinlock, where register allocation is detrimental.
- A buffer that is filled from the outside with some DMA mechanism.
- Real-time programs and games where
I am sorry for misreading 32 bits (4 bytes) as 32 bytes. That is
obviously very different. If Microsoft's malloc is sufficient, why does
MSDN tell us to use _aligned_malloc instead of malloc?
I don't know. Perhaps they assume that people may be using alternative
malloc implementations, or (more
Am 10.03.11 07:55, schrieb Neil Hodgson:
Martin v. Löwis:
I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to this case, though.
The Microsoft API declares the parameter as a volatile*, indicating
that they consider it proper usage of the API to declare the storage
volatile.
The 'volatile'
I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to this case, though.
The Microsoft API declares the parameter as a volatile*, indicating
that they consider it proper usage of the API to declare the storage
volatile. So ISTM that we should comply regardless of whether volatile
is considered
I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
endless loop. Perhaps someone here knows why?
It's a new Mac Mini running the latest Snow Leopard, with Python 2.6.1
(the /usr/bin/python) and buildslave
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Eugene Toder elto...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
patches
do not address folding of -0.
Hmm, it seems that way. Could you post a comment on the tracker
Hi,
changeset: 68315:b9d76846bb1c
branch: 2.6
parent: 68264:50166a4bcfc6
user:Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk
date:Mon Mar 07 15:02:11 2011 +
summary:
Issue #11424: Fix bug in determining child loggers.
This does not look like a security bug, and is
The idea is to pull their remote branch but not merge it, which will create
multiple heads locally.
“hg pull some-repo-uri” does that.
Then find the common ancestor of my regular local head and the new head,
and diff the ancestor with the new head.
I think Mercurial revsets can do that, but I
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:29:59 +0100
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Hi,
changeset: 68315:b9d76846bb1c
branch: 2.6
parent: 68264:50166a4bcfc6
user:Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk
date:Mon Mar 07 15:02:11 2011 +
summary:
Issue #11424: Fix
Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com writes:
I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
endless loop. Perhaps someone here knows why?
Do you have any information as to what it is doing while in the
I've posted a patch.
Eugene
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Eugene Toder elto...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial, which is
why I started with 2.6 (the bugfix wasn't applicable to 2.5). So we don't need
to import into Subversion, but I see no point in reverting it in Mercurial.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
- Original Message
From:
Hi,
From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial,
Correct, but only in maintained branches, not security-mode branches.
which is why I started with 2.6 (the bugfix wasn't applicable to 2.5).
As I said in my first message:
This does not look like a security bug, and is
- Original Message
From: Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org
From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial,
Correct, but only in maintained branches, not security-mode branches.
Well, I saw this recent mail from Antoine:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:17:34 + (UTC)
Eugene Toder elto...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
patches
do not address folding of -0.
Btw, there's an alternative approach to allow
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com writes:
I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
endless loop. Perhaps someone here knows why?
Do you have any
Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com writes:
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com writes:
I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
endless loop. Perhaps someone
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:46:11 PST
Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com wrote:
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com writes:
I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in
Well, that was just a though. You're right that long runs of constants
can appear, and it's better to avoid pathological behaviour in such
cases.
Your second path looks good.
Eugene
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:17:34 +
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
There used to be a way to request a ping from the master side (I
think on the same page you could manually run a build from) that I
would used to force it to recognize a slave was really down, but after
the web interface got rearranged a while back, I
Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com writes:
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
There used to be a way to request a ping from the master side (I
think on the same page you could manually run a build from) that I
would used to force it to recognize a slave was really down, but after
the web
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
- Original Message
From: Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org
From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial,
Correct, but only in maintained branches, not security-mode branches.
Well, I
On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
It's a new Mac Mini running the latest Snow Leopard, with Python 2.6.1
(the /usr/bin/python) and buildslave 0.8.3, using Twisted 8.2.0.
I realize that Python 2.6 is pretty old too, but a _lot_ of bugfixes have gone
into Twisted since 8.2. I'm
Martin v. Löwis writes:
Note that it is ultimately up to a court to interpret these words of the
GPL, not to the FSF lawyer.
True, and in the case of a non-FSF product, any ambiguities would be
resolved first by determining the intent of the copyright owner,
second (perhaps even overriding
32 matches
Mail list logo
