On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:43:30 +0200
> Regardless of the fact that apparently noone reported it in real-world
> conditions, we *could* decide that the issue needs fixing. If we
> decide so, Nir's approach is the most rigorous one: it tries
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> B. some more thought should be given to incorporating the new GIL into
> 2.7. However, this requires two things:
> - an update to the patch in 7753 to either retain the old GIL for
> platforms not supported by the new GIL or else to make the new GIL a
> configure option
>
On 19/05/10 10:35, David Beazley wrote:
Antoine,
This is a pretty good summary that mirrors my thoughts on the GIL
matter as well. In the big picture, I do think it's desirable for
Python to address the multicore performance issue--namely to not have
the performance needlessly thrashed in that
Antoine,
This is a pretty good summary that mirrors my thoughts on the GIL matter as
well. In the big picture, I do think it's desirable for Python to address the
multicore performance issue--namely to not have the performance needlessly
thrashed in that environment. The original new GIL ad
On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:43:30 +0200
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> I can understand why Antoine is being offended: it's his implementation
> that you attacked. You literally said "At has been shown, it also in
> certain cases will race with the OS scheduler, so this is not already
> fixed", claiming
