[ python-Bugs-1094960 ] marshal.dumps('hello', 0) "Access violation"
Bugs item #1094960, was opened at 2005-01-03 14:09
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1094960&group_id=5470
Category: Python Library
Group: Python 2.4
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Mark Brophy (mbrophy)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: marshal.dumps('hello',0) "Access violation"
Initial Comment:
When attempting to generated marshaled data in <2.4 format,
I get a crash in python.exe.
With a windows XP installation of Python2.4 from
"http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.4/python-2.4.msi";
C:\Python24>python
Python 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 11:49:19) [MSC v.1310 32
bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for
more information.
>>> import marshal
>>> marshal.dumps('hello',0)
Windows popup:
"""
python.exe has encountered a problem and needs to
close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
"""
'Debug' shows:
"Unhandled exception in python.exe (PYTHON24.DLL):
0xC005: Access Violation"
C:\Python24>
--
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1094960&group_id=5470
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1094960 ] marshal.dumps('hello', 0) "Access violation"
Bugs item #1094960, was opened at 2005-01-03 22:09
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by quiver
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1094960&group_id=5470
Category: Python Library
Group: Python 2.4
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Mark Brophy (mbrophy)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: marshal.dumps('hello',0) "Access violation"
Initial Comment:
When attempting to generated marshaled data in <2.4 format,
I get a crash in python.exe.
With a windows XP installation of Python2.4 from
"http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.4/python-2.4.msi";
C:\Python24>python
Python 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 11:49:19) [MSC v.1310 32
bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for
more information.
>>> import marshal
>>> marshal.dumps('hello',0)
Windows popup:
"""
python.exe has encountered a problem and needs to
close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
"""
'Debug' shows:
"Unhandled exception in python.exe (PYTHON24.DLL):
0xC005: Access Violation"
C:\Python24>
--
Comment By: George Yoshida (quiver)
Date: 2005-01-03 23:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=671362
I think this has been fixed in CVS.
See:
- http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-
December/050481.html
- http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2004-
December/044312.html
--
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1094960&group_id=5470
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1094960 ] marshal.dumps('hello', 0) "Access violation"
Bugs item #1094960, was opened at 2005-01-03 08:09
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rhettinger
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1094960&group_id=5470
Category: Python Library
Group: Python 2.4
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Duplicate
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Mark Brophy (mbrophy)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: marshal.dumps('hello',0) "Access violation"
Initial Comment:
When attempting to generated marshaled data in <2.4 format,
I get a crash in python.exe.
With a windows XP installation of Python2.4 from
"http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.4/python-2.4.msi";
C:\Python24>python
Python 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 11:49:19) [MSC v.1310 32
bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for
more information.
>>> import marshal
>>> marshal.dumps('hello',0)
Windows popup:
"""
python.exe has encountered a problem and needs to
close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
"""
'Debug' shows:
"Unhandled exception in python.exe (PYTHON24.DLL):
0xC005: Access Violation"
C:\Python24>
--
>Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2005-01-03 09:45
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
This was reported once already and fixed for Py2.4.1.
Thanks.
--
Comment By: George Yoshida (quiver)
Date: 2005-01-03 09:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=671362
I think this has been fixed in CVS.
See:
- http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-
December/050481.html
- http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2004-
December/044312.html
--
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1094960&group_id=5470
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Feature Requests-1087418 ] long int bitwise ops speedup (patch included)
Feature Requests item #1087418, was opened at 2004-12-18 00:22 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by gregsmith You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=1087418&group_id=5470 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Gregory Smith (gregsmith) Assigned to: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) Summary: long int bitwise ops speedup (patch included) Initial Comment: The 'inner loop' for applying bitwise ops to longs is quite inefficient. The improvement in the attached diff is - 'a' is never shorter than 'b' (result: only test 1 loop index condition instead of 3) - each operation ( & | ^ ) has its own loop, instead of switch inside loop - I found that, when this is done, a lot of things can be simplified, resulting in further speedup, and the resulting code is not very much longer than before (my libpython2.4.dll .text got 140 bytes longer). Operations on longs of a few thousand bits appear to be 2 ... 2.5 times faster with this patch. I'm not 100% sure the code is right, but it passes test_long.py, anyway. -- >Comment By: Gregory Smith (gregsmith) Date: 2005-01-03 14:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=292741 I originally timed this on a cygwin system, I've since found that cygwin timings tend to be strange and possibly misleading. On a RH8 system, I'm seeing speedup of x3.5 with longs of ~1500 bits and larger, and x1.5 speedup with only about 300 bits. Times were measured with timeit.Timer( 'a|b', 'a=...; b=...') Increase in .text size is likewise about 120 bytes. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=1087418&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095328 ] General FAW - incorrect "most stable version"
Bugs item #1095328, was opened at 2005-01-03 23:02 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095328&group_id=5470 Category: Documentation Group: Python 2.4 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: General FAW - incorrect "most stable version" Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#how- stable-is-python States that the most stable version is 2.3.3. This should be 2.4.0. Modifying (or checking) this FAQ entry should probably be added to the list of things to be done when a new version is released. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095328&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095328 ] General FAW - incorrect "most stable version"
Bugs item #1095328, was opened at 2005-01-03 18:02 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by rhettinger You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095328&group_id=5470 Category: Documentation Group: Python 2.4 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) >Assigned to: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling) Summary: General FAW - incorrect "most stable version" Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#how- stable-is-python States that the most stable version is 2.3.3. This should be 2.4.0. Modifying (or checking) this FAQ entry should probably be added to the list of things to be done when a new version is released. -- >Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) Date: 2005-01-03 18:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=80475 Andrew, can you fix this and then assign to Anthony for inclusion on his checklist. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095328&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095328 ] General FAQ - incorrect "most stable version"
Bugs item #1095328, was opened at 2005-01-03 23:02 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by tcdelaney You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095328&group_id=5470 Category: Documentation Group: Python 2.4 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Assigned to: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling) >Summary: General FAQ - incorrect "most stable version" Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#how- stable-is-python States that the most stable version is 2.3.3. This should be 2.4.0. Modifying (or checking) this FAQ entry should probably be added to the list of things to be done when a new version is released. -- Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) Date: 2005-01-03 23:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=80475 Andrew, can you fix this and then assign to Anthony for inclusion on his checklist. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095328&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095342 ] Python FAQ: list.sort() out of date
Bugs item #1095342, was opened at 2005-01-03 23:16 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Python FAQ: list.sort() out of date Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#why- doesn-t-list-sort-return-the-sorted-list specifies the idiom: keys = dict.keys() keys.sort() for key in keys: ...do whatever with dict[key]... and doesn't mention sorted(). I would suggest the following wording be used: In situations where performance matters, making a copy of the list just to sort it would be wasteful. Therefore, list.sort() sorts the list in place. In order to remind you of that fact, it does not return the sorted list. This way, you won't be fooled into accidentally overwriting a list when you need a sorted copy but also need to keep the unsorted version around. In Python 2.4 a new builtin - sorted() - has been added. This function creates a new list from the passed iterable, sorts it and returns it. As a result, here's the idiom to iterate over the keys of a dictionary in sorted order: for key in sorted(dict.iterkeys()): ...do whatever with dict[key]... -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095342 ] General FAQ: list.sort() out of date
Bugs item #1095342, was opened at 2005-01-03 23:16 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by tcdelaney You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Summary: General FAQ: list.sort() out of date Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#why- doesn-t-list-sort-return-the-sorted-list specifies the idiom: keys = dict.keys() keys.sort() for key in keys: ...do whatever with dict[key]... and doesn't mention sorted(). I would suggest the following wording be used: In situations where performance matters, making a copy of the list just to sort it would be wasteful. Therefore, list.sort() sorts the list in place. In order to remind you of that fact, it does not return the sorted list. This way, you won't be fooled into accidentally overwriting a list when you need a sorted copy but also need to keep the unsorted version around. In Python 2.4 a new builtin - sorted() - has been added. This function creates a new list from the passed iterable, sorts it and returns it. As a result, here's the idiom to iterate over the keys of a dictionary in sorted order: for key in sorted(dict.iterkeys()): ...do whatever with dict[key]... -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095342 ] General FAQ: list.sort() out of date
Bugs item #1095342, was opened at 2005-01-03 23:16 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by tcdelaney You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: General FAQ: list.sort() out of date Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#why- doesn-t-list-sort-return-the-sorted-list specifies the idiom: keys = dict.keys() keys.sort() for key in keys: ...do whatever with dict[key]... and doesn't mention sorted(). I would suggest the following wording be used: In situations where performance matters, making a copy of the list just to sort it would be wasteful. Therefore, list.sort() sorts the list in place. In order to remind you of that fact, it does not return the sorted list. This way, you won't be fooled into accidentally overwriting a list when you need a sorted copy but also need to keep the unsorted version around. In Python 2.4 a new builtin - sorted() - has been added. This function creates a new list from the passed iterable, sorts it and returns it. As a result, here's the idiom to iterate over the keys of a dictionary in sorted order: for key in sorted(dict.iterkeys()): ...do whatever with dict[key]... -- >Comment By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Date: 2005-01-03 23:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=603121 Do we want to also reference the 2.3 and earlier idiom? -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095342 ] General FAQ: list.sort() out of date
Bugs item #1095342, was opened at 2005-01-03 18:16 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by rhettinger You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) >Assigned to: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling) Summary: General FAQ: list.sort() out of date Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#why- doesn-t-list-sort-return-the-sorted-list specifies the idiom: keys = dict.keys() keys.sort() for key in keys: ...do whatever with dict[key]... and doesn't mention sorted(). I would suggest the following wording be used: In situations where performance matters, making a copy of the list just to sort it would be wasteful. Therefore, list.sort() sorts the list in place. In order to remind you of that fact, it does not return the sorted list. This way, you won't be fooled into accidentally overwriting a list when you need a sorted copy but also need to keep the unsorted version around. In Python 2.4 a new builtin - sorted() - has been added. This function creates a new list from the passed iterable, sorts it and returns it. As a result, here's the idiom to iterate over the keys of a dictionary in sorted order: for key in sorted(dict.iterkeys()): ...do whatever with dict[key]... -- Comment By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Date: 2005-01-03 18:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=603121 Do we want to also reference the 2.3 and earlier idiom? -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[ python-Bugs-1095342 ] General FAQ: list.sort() out of date
Bugs item #1095342, was opened at 2005-01-03 23:16 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by tcdelaney You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Assigned to: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling) Summary: General FAQ: list.sort() out of date Initial Comment: http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#why- doesn-t-list-sort-return-the-sorted-list specifies the idiom: keys = dict.keys() keys.sort() for key in keys: ...do whatever with dict[key]... and doesn't mention sorted(). I would suggest the following wording be used: In situations where performance matters, making a copy of the list just to sort it would be wasteful. Therefore, list.sort() sorts the list in place. In order to remind you of that fact, it does not return the sorted list. This way, you won't be fooled into accidentally overwriting a list when you need a sorted copy but also need to keep the unsorted version around. In Python 2.4 a new builtin - sorted() - has been added. This function creates a new list from the passed iterable, sorts it and returns it. As a result, here's the idiom to iterate over the keys of a dictionary in sorted order: for key in sorted(dict.iterkeys()): ...do whatever with dict[key]... -- >Comment By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Date: 2005-01-04 00:28 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=603121 Updated text: In situations where performance matters, making a copy of the list just to sort it would be wasteful. Therefore, list.sort() sorts the list in place. In order to remind you of that fact, it does not return the sorted list. This way, you won't be fooled into accidentally overwriting a list when you need a sorted copy but also need to keep the unsorted version around. In Python 2.4 a new builtin - sorted() - has been added. This function creates a new list from a passed iterable, sorts it and returns it. As a result, here's the idiom to iterate over the keys of a dictionary in sorted order: for key in sorted(dict.iterkeys()): ...do whatever with dict[key]... Versions of Python prior to 2.4 need to use the following idiom: keys = dict.keys() keys.sort() for key in keys: ...do whatever with dict[key]... -- Comment By: Tim Delaney (tcdelaney) Date: 2005-01-03 23:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=603121 Do we want to also reference the 2.3 and earlier idiom? -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1095342&group_id=5470 ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
