Re: [Python-ideas] Add more information in the header of pyc files
On 11 April 2018 at 02:54, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:29:18 +0300 > Serhiy Storchaka > wrote: >> >> A bugfix release can fix bugs in bytecode generation. See for example >> issue27286. [1] The part of issue33041 backported to 3.7 and 3.6 is an >> other example. [2] There were other examples of compatible changing the >> bytecode. Without bumping the magic number these fixes can just not have >> any effect if existing pyc files were generated by older compilers. But >> bumping the magic number in a bugfix release can lead to rebuilding >> every pyc file (even unaffected by the fix) in distributives. > > Sure, but I don't think rebuilding every pyc file is a significant > problem. It's certainly less error-prone than cherry-picking which > files need rebuilding. And we need to handle the old bytecode format in the eval loop anyway, or else we'd be breaking compatibility with bytecode-only files, as well as introducing a significant performance regression for non-writable bytecode caches (if we were to ignore them). It's a subtle enough problem that I think the `compileall --force` option is a safer way of handling it, even if it regenerates some pyc files that could have been kept. For the "stable file signature" aspect, does that need to be specifically the first *four* bytes? One of the benefits of PEP 552 leaving those four bytes alone is that it meant that a lot of magic number checking code didn't need to change. If the stable marker could be placed later (e.g. after the PEP 552 header), then we'd similarly have the benefit that code checking the PEP 552 headers wouldn't need to change, at the expense of folks having to read 20 bytes to see the new signature byte (which shouldn't be a problem, given that file defaults to reading up to 1 MiB from files it is trying to identify). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add more information in the header of pyc files
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:29:18 +0300 Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > > A bugfix release can fix bugs in bytecode generation. See for example > issue27286. [1] The part of issue33041 backported to 3.7 and 3.6 is an > other example. [2] There were other examples of compatible changing the > bytecode. Without bumping the magic number these fixes can just not have > any effect if existing pyc files were generated by older compilers. But > bumping the magic number in a bugfix release can lead to rebuilding > every pyc file (even unaffected by the fix) in distributives. Sure, but I don't think rebuilding every pyc file is a significant problem. It's certainly less error-prone than cherry-picking which files need rebuilding. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add more information in the header of pyc files
10.04.18 18:58, Antoine Pitrou пише: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:49:36 +0300 Serhiy Storchaka wrote: 3. The number of compatible subversion. Currently the interpreter supports only a single magic number. If the updated version of the compiler produces more optimal or more correct but compatible bytecode (like ), there is no way to say that the new bytecode is preferable, but the old bytecode can be used too. Changing the magic number causes invalidating all pyc files compiled by the old compiler (see [4] for the example of problems caused by this). The header could contain two magic numbers: the major magic number should be bumped for incompatible changes, the minor magic number should be reset to 0 when the major magic number is bumped, and should be bumped when the compiler become producing different but compatible bytecode. -1. This is a risky move (and costly, in maintenance terms). It's easy to overlook subtle differencies that may translate into incompatibilities in some production uses. The rule « one Python feature release == one bytecode version » is easy to remember and understand, and is generally very well accepted. A bugfix release can fix bugs in bytecode generation. See for example issue27286. [1] The part of issue33041 backported to 3.7 and 3.6 is an other example. [2] There were other examples of compatible changing the bytecode. Without bumping the magic number these fixes can just not have any effect if existing pyc files were generated by older compilers. But bumping the magic number in a bugfix release can lead to rebuilding every pyc file (even unaffected by the fix) in distributives. [1] https://bugs.python.org/issue27286 [2] https://bugs.python.org/issue33041 ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add more information in the header of pyc files
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:49:36 +0300 Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > > 1. More stable file signature. Currently the magic number is changed in > every feature release. Only the third and the forth bytes are stable > (b'\r\n'), the first bytes are changed non-predicable. The 'py' launcher > and third-party software like the 'file' command should support the list > of magic numbers for all existing Python releases, and they can't detect > pyc file for future versions. There is also a chance the pyc file > signature will match the signature of other file type by accident. It > would be better if the first 4 bytes of pyc files be same for all Python > versions (or at least for all Python versions with the same major number). +1. > 2. Include the Python version. Currently the 'py' launcher needs to > support the table that maps magic numbers to Python version. It can > recognize only Python versions released before building the launcher. If > the two major numbers of Python version be included in the version, it > would not need such table. +1. > 3. The number of compatible subversion. Currently the interpreter > supports only a single magic number. If the updated version of the > compiler produces more optimal or more correct but compatible bytecode > (like ), there is no way to say that the new bytecode is preferable, but > the old bytecode can be used too. Changing the magic number causes > invalidating all pyc files compiled by the old compiler (see [4] for the > example of problems caused by this). The header could contain two magic > numbers: the major magic number should be bumped for incompatible > changes, the minor magic number should be reset to 0 when the major > magic number is bumped, and should be bumped when the compiler become > producing different but compatible bytecode. -1. This is a risky move (and costly, in maintenance terms). It's easy to overlook subtle differencies that may translate into incompatibilities in some production uses. The rule « one Python feature release == one bytecode version » is easy to remember and understand, and is generally very well accepted. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
