> On Jul 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>
> The benefit is that it will be easier to run all C API tests at once, and
> only them, and it will be clearer what C API is covered by tests. The
> disadvantage is that you will need to run several files for testing marshal
> for ex
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2018-07-29 23:41 GMT+02:00 Jeroen Demeyer :
>> For example, you mention that you want to make Py_INCREF() a function call
>> instead of a macro. But since Py_INCREF is very common, I would guess that
>> this would make performance worse (no
2018-07-29 23:41 GMT+02:00 Jeroen Demeyer :
> For example, you mention that you want to make Py_INCREF() a function call
> instead of a macro. But since Py_INCREF is very common, I would guess that
> this would make performance worse (not by much maybe but surely measurable).
For the very specific
My first impression is that making things faster and hiding
implementation details in the ABI are contrary goals. I agree with
hiding implementation details in the API but not in the ABI.
For example, you mention that you want to make Py_INCREF() a function
call instead of a macro. But since P
On 07/29/2018 06:02 PM, Berker Peksağ wrote:
There is an open issue to add os.posix_spawn() at
https://bugs.python.org/issue20104
Seems promising, but 3.7 does not support it. And I don't see whether
Python will work without fork().
- bpo-20104: Expose posix_spawn as a low level API in the os m
Hi,
I just sent an email to the capi-sig mailing list. Since this mailing
list was idle for months, I copy my email here to get a wider
audience. But if possible, I would prefer that you join me on capi-sig
to reply ;-)
--
Hi,
Last year, I gave a talk at the Language Summit (during Pycon) to
ex
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 06:44 Serhiy Storchaka, wrote:
> 29.07.18 15:39, Steve Dower пише:
> > On 29Jul2018 1253, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> >> The benefit is that it will be easier to run all C API tests at once,
> >> and only them, and it will be clearer what C API is covered by tests.
> >> The di
If the problem is AV scanners, then they should be opening them properly for
this (and since the delete is not failing but is being deferred, I assume it's
allowing deletes). If the problem is elsewhere in our code base then we have a
different bug.
Top-posted from my Windows 10 phone
From: er
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Barath Aron wrote:
> My question is that the _posixsubprocess.c can be prepared to use
> posix_spawn(3) instead of fork(2)? Maybe the UNIX/Linux version can also
> benefit from it, see:
> https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-posix-spawn
There is an open issue t
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:34 AM Tim Golden wrote:
> For test_mailbox I've experimentally implemented a hybrid tempfile /
> local directory solution. ie I've created a new file on each run, but
> only within the python_ folder which already exists. As long as the
> directory cleans up there should
Hello Python list,
I intend to cross-compile Python v3.6.6 to Threos ( https://threos.io )
operating system. Threos is supports a quite large set from POSIX and
C89/C99. Unfortunately, Threos lacks fork(2), but provides
posix_spawn(3) instead. I already made some local changes in
posixmodule.
On 29/07/2018 15:21, Jeremy Kloth wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:13 AM Tim Golden wrote:
For an example:
http://tjg.org.uk/test.log
Thank you! After inspecting all the errors, it does seem that they
are ALL caused by "bare" os.unlink/rmdir calls. So it seems that a
massive undertaking of
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Jeremy Kloth wrote:
>
> try:
> os.rename(new_file.name, self._path)
> except FileExistsError:
> -os.remove(self._path)
> +temp_name = _create_temporary_name(self._path)
> +os.rename(self._path, temp
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> One additional thing that may help (if support.unlink doesn't already do it)
> is to rename the file before deleting it. Renames are always possible even
> with open handles, and then you can create a new file at the original name.
Renaming
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:13 AM Tim Golden wrote:
> For an example:
>
> http://tjg.org.uk/test.log
Thank you! After inspecting all the errors, it does seem that they
are ALL caused by "bare" os.unlink/rmdir calls. So it seems that a
massive undertaking of ferreting out these locations and repla
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Tim Golden wrote:
>
> For an example:
>
> http://tjg.org.uk/test.log
>
> Thinkpad T420, 4Gb, i5, SSD
>
> Recently rebuilt and reinstalled: Win10, VS2017, TortoiseGit, standard
> Windows Antimalware, usual developer tools. That particular run was done
> with the lap
29.07.18 15:39, Steve Dower пише:
On 29Jul2018 1253, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The benefit is that it will be easier to run all C API tests at once,
and only them, and it will be clearer what C API is covered by tests.
The disadvantage is that you will need to run several files for
testing marsh
On 29Jul2018 1253, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The benefit is that it will be easier to run all C API tests at once,
and only them, and it will be clearer what C API is covered by tests.
The disadvantage is that you will need to run several files for testing
marshal for example.
Can we make the r
On 29Jul2018 0958, Tim Golden wrote:
In the interests of trying to keep a focus to the changes I'm making, I
propose to start again by, as you suggest, making use of
test.support.unlink where it's not currently used. From the evidence I
don't believe that will solve every problem I'm seeing but
Currently C API is not completely covered by tests. Tests for particular
parts of C API are scattered through different files. There are files
completely purposed for testing C API (like test_capi.py,
test_getargs2.py), there are classes (usually having "CAPI" in the name)
in different files fo
On 28/07/2018 22:17, Jeremy Kloth wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:20 AM Tim Golden wrote:
Although things have moved on since that discussion and
test.support.unlink has grown some extra legs, all it's done really is
to push the bump along the carpet for a bit. I've got a newly-installed
Win1
On 29/07/2018 02:04, Jeremy Kloth wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:43 PM Brett Cannon
wrote:
If Windows doesn't clean up its temp directory on a regular basis
then that doesn't suggest to me not to use tempfile, but instead
that the use of tempfile still needs to clean up after itself. And
if t
22 matches
Mail list logo
