On 13 September 2016 at 17:34, Damien George wrote:
> Suggestions for setting the opt level were:
>
> 1) sys.set_default_optimize(level), with the existing
> sys.flags.optimize attribute as the accessor.
>
> 2) sys.opt_level, being a read/write attribute
>
> 3) sys._setflag(name, value) as impleme
Thanks all for the input on this topic. Let me summarise what was said.
There was discussion that the ability to change the "optimize" value
is not enough and there should be more fine grained control over other
flags/settings. Perhaps that is true, but at least for our case in
MicroPython there
Hi Petr,
> The API you proposed here comes is similar to something I see a lot in
> MicroPython libraries: functions/methods that combine a getter and setter.
> For example, to set the value on a pin, you do:
> pin.value(1)
> and to read, you do:
> result = pin.value()
>
> If an API like
In eGenix PyRun we expose a new helper in the sys module
for this:
--- ./Python/sysmodule.c 2015-12-07 02:39:11.0 +0100
+++ ./Python/sysmodule.c2016-05-03 19:22:35.793193862 +0200
@@ -1205,6 +1205,50 @@
Return True if Python is exiting.");
+/*** PyRun Extension *
If people are curious as to where import makes its decision as to what
bytecode to load based on the optimization level, see
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/ad3b9aeaab5122b22445f9120a6ccdc1987c15cc/Lib/importlib/_bootstrap_external.py#L292
.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 at 04:53 Nick Coghlan wrote
On 10 September 2016 at 03:20, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I don't know if it's been discussed, but I have thought about it in context
> of PEP 511. The problem with swapping optimization levels post-start is that
> you end up with inconsistencies, e.g. asserts that depend on other
> asserts/__debug__ t
On 10 September 2016 at 03:01, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In particular, I expect that some time soon somebody will propose at
> least one more optimization:
>
> - remove annotations
>
>
In process of developing the implementation of variable annotations
this idea already appeared (I even did some
On 09/10/2016 02:04 AM, Damien George wrote:
What is to stop you from adding this to micropython as a library
extension?
That's what I would like to do, and usually we do just go ahead and
add our own extensions, trying to be Pythonic as possible :)
But we do that a lot and sometimes I think i
2016-09-10 2:56 GMT-04:00 Andrew Svetlov :
> There are also peephole optimization.
> Removing it may prevent false positives for coverage tool
> http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
My PEP 511 adds "-o noopt" to disable the peephole optimizer ;-)
"PEP 511 -- API for code transformers"
www.python.org/
There are also peephole optimization.
Removing it may prevent false positives for coverage tool
http://bugs.python.org/issue2506
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 4:01 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:04:46AM +1000, Damien George wrote:
>
> > I guess my main question to this list is:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:04:46AM +1000, Damien George wrote:
> I guess my main question to this list is: if CPython were to add a
> function to change the optimisation level at runtime, what would it
> look like?
I don't think it would look like sys.optimize(flag). At the very least,
it would
On 2016-09-10 01:04, Damien George wrote:
What is to stop you from adding this to micropython as a library
extension?
That's what I would like to do, and usually we do just go ahead and
add our own extensions, trying to be Pythonic as possible :)
But we do that a lot and sometimes I think it w
> What is to stop you from adding this to micropython as a library
> extension?
That's what I would like to do, and usually we do just go ahead and
add our own extensions, trying to be Pythonic as possible :)
But we do that a lot and sometimes I think it would be good to discuss
with upstream (ie
I very much doubt that one assert might depend on another, and if they
do, we can just tell people not to change the debug level. The API to
change this should set __debug__ appropriately.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 at 21:36 Damien George wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 at 21:36 Damien George wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When starting CPython from the command line you can pass the -O option
> to enable optimisations (eg `assert 0` won't raise an exception when
> -O is passed). But, AFAIK, there is no way to change the optimisation
> level after the i
What is to stop you from adding this to micropython as a library
extension? I've never felt the urge to do this and I don't think I've
ever heard it requested before. If you think it should be in the
stdlib, given the timing of the 3.6 feature freeze the earliest time
it could land would be Python
16 matches
Mail list logo
