Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > Proposals like this have been rejected in the past. Memory consumption > is an evasive concept. Lists over-allocate space
That issue is addressed in this patch. > there are freelists, but they allocate just an upper bound. > there are immortal objects, the python memory allocator may hang-on to > space thought to be available These issues are orthogonal to the memory consumption of a single object. > the packing and alignment of structures > varies across implementations This is addressed in the current patch. > the system memory allocator may assign > much larger chunks than are needed for a single object While true in general, this is not true in practice - in particular, when objects get allocated through pymalloc. > and the memory > may not be freed back to the system. Because of these issues, it is > not that meaningful to say the object x consumes y bytes. This is not true. It is meaningful to say that (and many that you noted are independent from such a statement, as they say things for the whole interpreter, not an individual object). The patch meets a real need, and is the minimum amount of code that actually *has* to be implemented in the virtual machine, to get a reasonable analysis of the total memory consumption. Please be practical here, not puristic. __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2898> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
