Re: [Python-Dev] urllib bug in Python 3.2.1?
On 8/9/2011 2:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: Am 09.08.2011 01:35, schrieb Terry Reedy: On 8/8/2011 4:26 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: With Python 3.1 and Python 3.2.1 it works OK, but with Python 3.2.1 the read returns an empty string (I checked it myself). http://bugs.python.org/issue12576 The bug is now fixed. Can you release a Python 3.2.2, maybe only with this fix? Any new release should also have http://bugs.python.org/issue12540 which fixes another bad regression. I can certainly release a version with these two fixes. Question is, should we call it 3.2.2, or 3.2.1.1 (3.2.1p1)? I believe precedent and practicality say 3.2.2. How much more, if anything is up to you. The important question is whether Martin is willing to do a Windows installer, as 12540 only affects Windows. -- Terry Jan Reedy ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] GIL removal question
Probably I want to re-invent a bicycle. I want developers to say me why we can not remove GIL in that way: 1. Remove GIL completely with all current logick. 2. Add it's own RW-locking to all mutable objects (like list or dict) 3. Add RW-locks to every context instance 4. use RW-locks when accessing members of object instances Only one reason, I see, not do that -- is performance of singlethreaded applications. Why not to fix locking functions for this 4 cases to stubs when only one thread present? For atomicity, locks may be implemented as this: For example for this source: import threading def x(): i=1000 while i: i-- a = threading.Thread(target=x) b = threading.Thread(target=x) a.start() b.start() a.join() b.join() in my case it will be fully parallel, as common object is not locked much (only global context when a. = executed). I think, performance of such code will be higher that using GIL. Other significant reason of not using my case, as I think, is a plenty of atomic processor instructions in each thread, which affect kernel performance. Also, I know about incompatibility my variant with existing code. In a summary: Please say clearly why, actually, my variant is not still implemented. Thanks. -- Segmentation fault ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] GIL removal question
Probably I want to re-invent a bicycle. I want developers to say me why we can not remove GIL in that way: 1. Remove GIL completely with all current logick. 2. Add it's own RW-locking to all mutable objects (like list or dict) 3. Add RW-locks to every context instance 4. use RW-locks when accessing members of object instances Only one reason, I see, not do that -- is performance of singlethreaded applications. Why not to fix locking functions for this 4 cases to stubs when only one thread present? For atomicity, locks may be implemented as this: For example for this source: import threading def x(): i=1000 while i: i-- a = threading.Thread(target=x) b = threading.Thread(target=x) a.start() b.start() a.join() b.join() in my case it will be fully parallel, as common object is not locked much (only global context when a. = executed). I think, performance of such code will be higher that using GIL. Other significant reason of not using my case, as I think, is a plenty of atomic processor instructions in each thread, which affect kernel performance. Also, I know about incompatibility my variant with existing code. In a summary: Please say clearly why, actually, my variant is not still implemented. Thanks. -- Segmentation fault ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] urllib bug in Python 3.2.1?
2011-08-09 08:02:45 Georg Brandl napisał(a): > Am 09.08.2011 01:35, schrieb Terry Reedy: > > On 8/8/2011 4:26 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > With Python 3.1 and Python 3.2.1 it works OK, but with Python 3.2.1 the > read returns an empty string (I checked it myself). > >>> > >>> http://bugs.python.org/issue12576 > >> > >> The bug is now fixed. Can you release a Python 3.2.2, maybe only with > >> this fix? > > > > Any new release should also have > > http://bugs.python.org/issue12540 > > which fixes another bad regression. > > I can certainly release a version with these two fixes. Question is, should > we call it 3.2.2, or 3.2.1.1 (3.2.1p1)? I would suggest that a normal release with all changes committed on 3.2 branch be created. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question
Марк Коренберг, 09.08.2011 11:31: In a summary: Please say clearly why, actually, my variant is not still implemented. This question comes up on the different Python lists every once in a while. In general, if you want something to be implemented in a specific way, feel free to provide the implementation. There were several attempts to remove the GIL from the interpreter, you can look them up in the archives of this mailing list. They all failed to provide competitive performance, especially for the single-threaded case, and were therefore deemed inappropriate "solutions" to the "problem". Note that I put "problem" into quotes, simply because it is controversial if the GIL actually *is* a problem. This question has also been discussed and rediscussed in great length on the different Python lists. Stefan ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] urllib bug in Python 3.2.1?
On Aug 09, 2011, at 08:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: >I can certainly release a version with these two fixes. Question is, should >we call it 3.2.2, or 3.2.1.1 (3.2.1p1)? Definitely 3.2.2. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] urllib bug in Python 3.2.1?
Am 09.08.2011 16:25, schrieb Barry Warsaw: > On Aug 09, 2011, at 08:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > >>I can certainly release a version with these two fixes. Question is, should >>we call it 3.2.2, or 3.2.1.1 (3.2.1p1)? > > Definitely 3.2.2. OK, 3.2.2 it is. I will have to have a closer look at the other changes in the branch to decide if it'll be a single(double)-fix only release. Schedule would be roughly as follows: rc1 this Friday/Saturday, then I'm on vacation for a little more than one week, so final would be the weekend of 27/28 August. Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
