On Thursday 10 March 2011, Sturla Molden wrote:
> As for InterlockedCompareExchange et al., MSDN says this: "The
> parameters for this function must be aligned on a 32-bit boundary;
bit != byte
Uli
**
Domino La
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> As for the volatile marker - I believe the code is also
> correct without it, since the owned field is only accessed
> through initialization and Interlocked operations.
Furthermore, if the code weren't correct, "volatile" would only be
h
On 3/10/2011 3:07 AM, Paul Du Bois wrote:
> volatile considered harmful
http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
--
Scott Dial
sc...@scottdial.com
scod...@cs.indiana.edu
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
h
This behavior (which "volatile" aggravates) unfortunately makes it
even tougher to find race conditions. In my experience,
> volatile should be avoided. I'd even bet money that some grumpy
person has written a "volatile considered harmful" essay.
I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to
Note that your interpretation would allow Python to distribute
arbitrarily licensed libraries and GPL programs to link with them.
That is surely not the intent of the authors of the GPL, and in the
past, the FSF has explicitly restricted the interpretation of "system
library".
Note that it is ul
Den 10.03.2011 11:06, skrev Scott Dial:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
The important part here (forgive me for being a pedant) is that register
allocation of the (1) 'owned' field is actually unwanted, and (2)
Microsoft specify 'volatile' in calls t
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Joao S. O. Bueno writes:
>
> > Any libraries commonly avaliable with a CPython instalation can be
> > considered as "system libraries" for GPL purposes - and so
> > this would fall in the "system library exception" as described by th
Martin v. Löwis:
> I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to this case, though.
> The Microsoft API declares the parameter as a volatile*, indicating
> that they consider it "proper" usage of the API to declare the storage
> volatile.
The 'volatile' here is a modifier on the parameter an
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:18:22 +0100
Sturla Molden wrote:
>
> Obvious usecases for volatile are:
>
> - Implementation of a spinlock, where register allocation is detrimental.
> - A buffer that is filled from the "outside" with some DMA mechanism.
> - Real-time programs and games where order of exe
I am sorry for misreading 32 bits (4 bytes) as 32 bytes. That is
obviously very different. If Microsoft's malloc is sufficient, why does
MSDN tell us to use _aligned_malloc instead of malloc?
I don't know. Perhaps they assume that people may be using alternative
malloc implementations, or (more
Am 10.03.11 07:55, schrieb Neil Hodgson:
Martin v. Löwis:
I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to this case, though.
The Microsoft API declares the parameter as a volatile*, indicating
that they consider it "proper" usage of the API to declare the storage
volatile.
The 'volatile'
> I guess all this advice doesn't really apply to this case, though.
> The Microsoft API declares the parameter as a volatile*, indicating
> that they consider it "proper" usage of the API to declare the storage
> volatile. So ISTM that we should comply regardless of whether volatile
> is considere
I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
endless loop. Perhaps someone here knows why?
It's a new Mac Mini running the latest Snow Leopard, with Python 2.6.1
(the /usr/bin/python) and buildslave 0.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Eugene Toder wrote:
>> Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
>
> Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
> patches
> do not address folding of -0.
Hmm, it seems that way. Could you post a comment on the tracker issue
about
Hi,
>> changeset: 68315:b9d76846bb1c
>> branch: 2.6
>> parent: 68264:50166a4bcfc6
>> user:Vinay Sajip
>> date:Mon Mar 07 15:02:11 2011 +
>> summary:
>> Issue #11424: Fix bug in determining child loggers.
>
> This does not look like a security bug, and is therefo
> The idea is to pull their remote branch but not merge it, which will create
> multiple heads locally.
“hg pull some-repo-uri” does that.
> Then find the common ancestor of my regular local head and the new head,
> and diff the ancestor with the new head.
I think Mercurial revsets can do that, bu
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:29:59 +0100
Éric Araujo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> changeset: 68315:b9d76846bb1c
> >> branch: 2.6
> >> parent: 68264:50166a4bcfc6
> >> user:Vinay Sajip
> >> date:Mon Mar 07 15:02:11 2011 +
> >> summary:
> >> Issue #11424: Fix bug in determining c
Bill Janssen writes:
> I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
> getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
> endless loop. Perhaps someone here knows why?
Do you have any information as to what it is doing while in the loop?
I think th
I've posted a patch.
Eugene
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Eugene Toder wrote:
>>> Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
>>
>> Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
>> patches
>> do not address
From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial, which is
why I started with 2.6 (the bugfix wasn't applicable to 2.5). So we don't need
to import into Subversion, but I see no point in reverting it in Mercurial.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
- Original Message
> From: É
Hi,
> From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial,
Correct, but only in maintained branches, not security-mode branches.
> which is why I started with 2.6 (the bugfix wasn't applicable to 2.5).
As I said in my first message:
>>> This does not look like a security bug, and
- Original Message
> From: Éric Araujo
> > From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial,
> Correct, but only in maintained branches, not security-mode branches.
>
Well, I saw this recent mail from Antoine:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:17:34 + (UTC)
Eugene Toder wrote:
> > Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
>
> Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
> patches
> do not address folding of -0.
>
> Btw, there's an alternative approach to allow "recursive" cons
David Bolen wrote:
> Bill Janssen writes:
>
> > I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
> > getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
> > endless loop. Perhaps someone here knows why?
>
> Do you have any information as to what it is d
Bill Janssen writes:
> David Bolen wrote:
>
>> Bill Janssen writes:
>>
>> > I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
>> > getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
>> > endless loop. Perhaps someone here knows why?
>>
>> Do you have a
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:46:11 PST
Bill Janssen wrote:
> David Bolen wrote:
>
> > Bill Janssen writes:
> >
> > > I'm trying to get a new buildbot in the swim of things, and it keeps
> > > getting into this state where the buildslave process seems caught in an
> > > endless loop. Perhaps someone
Well, that was just a though. You're right that long runs of constants
can appear, and it's better to avoid pathological behaviour in such
cases.
Your second path looks good.
Eugene
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:17:34 + (UTC)
> Eugene Toder
David Bolen wrote:
> There used to be a way to request a "ping" from the master side (I
> think on the same page you could manually run a build from) that I
> would used to force it to recognize a slave was really down, but after
> the web interface got rearranged a while back, I can't seem to fi
Bill Janssen writes:
> David Bolen wrote:
>
>> There used to be a way to request a "ping" from the master side (I
>> think on the same page you could manually run a build from) that I
>> would used to force it to recognize a slave was really down, but after
>> the web interface got rearranged a
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:36 PM, ezio.melotti
wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/9adc4792db9a
> changeset: 68356:9adc4792db9a
> branch: 2.7
> user: Ezio Melotti
> date: Thu Mar 10 23:35:39 2011 +0200
> summary:
> Use simpler assert in basic example.
Please don't. Now
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Éric Araujo
>> > From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial,
>> Correct, but only in maintained branches, not security-mode branches.
>>
>
> Well, I saw this recent mail from An
On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> It's a new Mac Mini running the latest Snow Leopard, with Python 2.6.1
> (the /usr/bin/python) and buildslave 0.8.3, using Twisted 8.2.0.
I realize that Python 2.6 is pretty old too, but a _lot_ of bugfixes have gone
into Twisted since 8.2. I'm
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> Note that it is ultimately up to a court to interpret these words of the
> GPL, not to the FSF lawyer.
True, and in the case of a non-FSF product, any ambiguities would be
resolved first by determining the intent of the copyright owner,
second (perhaps even overridin
33 matches
Mail list logo
