On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Tom Conneely <tom.conne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your reply, you've given me plenty to think about > > On Sep 29, 11:51 pm, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > > > > My original plan was to have the data processing and data acquisition > > > functions running in separate processes, with a multiprocessing.Queue > > > for passing the raw data packets. The raw data is read in as a char*, > > > with a non constant length, hence I have allocated memory using > > > PyMem_Malloc and I am returning from the acquisition function a > > > PyCObject containing a pointer to this char* buffer, along with a > > > destructor. > > > > That sounds overkill, and I also wonder how you plan to pass that > > object in a multiprocessing Queue (which relies on objects being > > pickleable). Why don't you simply create a PyString object instead? > > Could you elaborate on why you feel this is overkill? Also, your right > about > passing the PyCObjects through a Queue, something which I hadn't > really > considered, so I've switched to using python strings as you > suggested, > an overhead I hoped to avoid but you can't win them all I suppose.
Well, there should be no overhead. Actually, a string should be cheaper since: - the string contents are allocated inline with the PyObject header - while your PyCObject contents were allocated separately (two allocations rather than one) Regards Antoine. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
