On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:24:26 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
It would be great if rebase did work with share, that would make a
push race basically a non-issue for me.
rebase as well as strip
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:16:11 +0100
reid.kleckner python-check...@python.org wrote:
@@ -265,34 +271,43 @@
generates enough output to a pipe such that it blocks waiting
for the OS pipe buffer to accept
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I can confirm that the Cython project was as surprised of the PyCapsule
change in Python 3.2 as (I guess) most other users, and I would claim that
we
They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
That will allocate 1 Python object with no dict per key, but that
might not be good enough.
Reid
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I was just reminded
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Reid Kleckner reid.kleck...@gmail.com
wrote:
They should be able to use a slotted cmp_to_key style class:
http://docs.python.org/howto/sorting.html
That will allocate 1 Python object
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
Also changing it now would be a giant hassle, leading to so-called const
poisoning where many, many APIs need to be changed before everything would
again work.
The poisoning will not break any users of the API, though, since
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
- SIGABRT is not handled
Why not? That seems useful for debugging assertion failures, although
most C code in Python raises exceptions rather than asserting.
I'm guessing it's because it aborts the process
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
Ugh, I can't be the only one who finds these special cases to be a little
nasty?
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Alex
+1, I don't think nailing down a few builtins is that helpful for
optimizing
Congratulations! Excellent work.
Reid
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com wrote:
===
PyPy 1.4: Ouroboros in practice
===
We're pleased to announce the 1.4 release of PyPy. This is a major
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:33 AM, vinay.sajip python-check...@python.org
wrote:
+ .. attribute:: stack_info
+
+ Stack frame information (where available) from the bottom of the stack
+ in the current thread,
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
I think the panic is a bit of an overreaction. PEP 384 has still not
been accepted, and I haven't seen a final decision about freezing the
ABI in 3.2.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I also suggest that, instead of uploading the patch to Rietveld
yourself, you can ask the submitter to do it.
That adds another step.
Let me repeat me original question: Would it be feasible to add a [view]
button that I
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:58 AM, stefan brunthaler
ste...@brunthaler.net wrote:
Do I understand correctly that you modify the byte code of modules/functions
at runtime?
Yes. Quickening is runtime only optimization technique that rewrites
instructions from a generic instruction to an optimized
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM, stefan brunthaler
ste...@brunthaler.net wrote:
I'm guessing from your comments below about cross-module inlining that
you generate a separate .c file with the specialized opcode bodies and
then call through to them via a table of function pointers indexed by
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 22.07.2010 14:12, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
So, I thought there wasn't a difference in performance for this use case
(which is compiling a lot of regexes
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM, gregory.smi...@sympatico.ca wrote:
I'm very amused by all the jokes about turning python into perl, but there's
a good idea here that doesn't actually require that...
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Unfortunately (?) the question also revealed a lack of understanding
of a fairly basic concept. IIUC, he wanted to know how Python
handles SIGKILL, when the hole point of SIGKILL is that you cannot
handle it. So he
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Tim Golden m...@timgolden.me.uk wrote:
Brett suggested that
the Unladen Swallow merge to trunk was waiting for some work to complete
on the JIT compiler and Georg, as release manager for 3.2, confirmed that
Unladen Swallow would not be merged before 3.3.
Yeah,
Hi python-dev,
I've been working through a patch to add timeouts to the subprocess module:
http://bugs.python.org/issue5673
It's gotten a fair amount of review, and I'm planning to commit it.
Since it's my first contribution, I'm taking Georg's suggestion to
send mail to python-dev to see if
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
As Terry wrote in the beginning of this thread, Lib/test/test_trace.py
currently tests the sys.settrace module, so the tests of trace.py
should find a new home. Does Lib/test/test_trace_module.py make sense
or is something
Usual disclaimer: python-dev is for the development *of* python, not
*with*. See python-list, etc.
That said, def declares new functions or methods, so you can't put
arbitrary expressions in there like type(f).__mul__ .
You can usually assign to things like that though, but in this case
you run
Thanks for the support!
Georg Brandl authorized my SSH keys for SVN access.
Reid
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:23:13 +
Reid Kleckner reid.kleck
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
MRAB's module offers a superset of re's features rather than a subset
though, so once it has had more of a chance to bake on PyPI it may be
worth another look.
I feel like the new module is designed to replace the current
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Kurt B. Kaiser k...@shore.net wrote:
Also, the current right click edit action on Windows is to only open an
edit window; no shell. And it uses the subprocess! So, some of the
comments on this thread are not up to date.
The reason that bug languished for two
Hey all,
I'm porting some fixes for threading.py that we applied to unladen-swallow:
http://bugs.python.org/issue6643
We ran into these bizarre race conditions involving fork + threads
while running the test suite with a background JIT compilation thread.
I really wish we weren't trying to
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I'm trying to test out a patch to add a timeout in subprocess.py on
Windows, so I need to build Python with Visual Studio. The docs say
the files in PCBuild/ work with VC 9 and newer.
Which docs did you look at
Hey folks,
I'm trying to test out a patch to add a timeout in subprocess.py on
Windows, so I need to build Python with Visual Studio. The docs say
the files in PCBuild/ work with VC 9 and newer. I downloaded Visual
C++ 2010 Express, and it needs to convert the .vcproj files into
.vcxproj files,
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
However, attaining the (sensible) behaviour Colin is requesting when such
top level variable references exist would actually be somewhat tricky.
Considering Guido's suggestion to treat two argument exec like a function
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Brian Quinlan br...@sweetapp.com wrote:
Keep in mind that this library magic is consistent with the library magic
that the threading module does - unless the user sets Thread.daemon to True,
the interpreter does *not* exit until the thread does.
Is there a
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com wrote:
I don't know what benchmarks were used to write dictnotes.txt, but moving
forward I would recommend implementing your changes on trunk (i.e., Python
2.x) and running the Unladen Swallow Benchmarks, which
Hey folks,
I was looking at tuning Python dicts for a data structures class final
project. I've looked through Object/dictnotes.txt, and obviously
there's already a large body of work on this topic. My idea was to
alter dict collision resolution as described in the hopscotch hashing
paper[1].
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Python itself is a highly dynamic language and not amenable to direct
compilation. Instead modern just-in-time compiler technology is seen as the
way to improve Python performance. Projects that are doing this are
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
If you can prove that making locals() (or its replacement) writable doesn't
complicate the interpreter core too much, then why not. Otherwise -1 :-)
I think writable locals would significantly complicate the job of
people
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Just as reminder of the process we have in place for such changes:
Please discuss any major breakage on python-dev before checking in
the patch.
I'm aware this is a good idea. I simply didn't
I don't think this will help you solve your problem, but one thing
we've done in unladen swallow is to hack PyType_Modified to invalidate
our own descriptor caches. We may eventually want to extend that into
a callback interface, but it probably will never be considered an API
that outside code
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:51 AM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
You lost me there :-)
I am not familiar with how U-S actually implements the compilation
step and was thinking of it working at the functions/methods level
and based on input/output parameter type information.
Yes, but it's
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Collin Winter collinwin...@google.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to have the compiler approach work
in three phases in order to reduce the memory footprint and
startup time hit, ie.
1. run an instrumented Python interpreter to collect all
the needed
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't disagree there; but then again, I haven't seen this issue
arise (in my own code)/no bug reports/no test cases that show this to
be a consistent issue. I'm perfectly OK with being wrong, I'm just
leery to tearing out
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Instead, we should aim to make Python fork-safe. If the primary concern
is that locks get inherited, we should change the Python locks so that
they get auto-released on fork (unless otherwise specified on lock
creation).
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
Your reasonable argument is making it difficult for me to be irrational
about this.
No problem. :)
This begs the question - assuming a patch that clones the behavior of win32
for multiprocessing, would the default
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That still leaves the question of what to do with __file__ (for which
even the solution in the PEP isn't particularly clean). Perhaps the
thing to do there is to have __file__ always point to the source file
and introduce
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
So, just to extend the question a little (or reiterate, it may be that
this is already covered and I didn't fully understand):
On Windows, would a C extension author be able to distribute a single
binary
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Meador Inge mead...@gmail.com wrote:
Also related to reduced code size with C++ I was wondering whether or not
anyone has explored using the ability of some toolchains to remove unused
code and data? In GCC this can be enabled by compiling with
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
32-bit; gcc 4.0.3
+-+---+---+--+ |
Binary size | CPython 2.6.4 | CPython 3.1.1 | Unladen Swallow r988 |
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Floris Bruynooghe
floris.bruynoo...@gmail.com wrote:
I just compiled with the --without-llvm option and see that the
binary, while only an acceptable 4.1M, still links with libstdc++. Is
it possible to completely get rid of the C++ dependency if this option
is
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Jake McGuire mcgu...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Collin Winter collinwin...@google.com
wrote:
Profiling
-
Unladen Swallow integrates with oProfile 0.9.4 and newer [#oprofile]_ to
support
assembly-level profiling on Linux
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Collin Winter collinwin...@google.com wrote:
P.S. Is there any chance of LLVM doing something like tracing JITs?
Those seem somewhat more promising to me (even though I understand
they're quite hard in the face of Python features like stack frames).
Yes, you
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
How large is the LLVM shared library? One surprising data point is that the
binary is much larger than some of the memory footprint measurements given in
the PEP.
Could it be that you need to strip the binary, or
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:07 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
To what extent would it be possible to use (conditionally) use full
ahead-of-time compilation as well as JIT?
It would be possible to do this, but it doesn't have nearly the same
benefits as JIT compilation, as Alex
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
If CPython development moves to distributed hg, the notion of 'blessed'
branches (other than the PSF release branch) will, as I understand it,
become somewhat obsolete. If you make a branch publicly available, anyone
can grab
Hi all,
I'm working on http://bugs.python.org/issue6642 for unladen swallow
(because it happens to bite us in a weird way), and Jeff Yasskin told
me to ask python-dev what the proper behavior should be at exit from
the child process of a fork from a spawned thread.
Right now, it seems that there
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Martin v. Löwismar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
On one hand, you may not want to call the user's atexit handlers
multiple times from different processes if they have externally
visible effects. On the other hand, people seem to assume that
Py_Finalize will be called
52 matches
Mail list logo
