24.06.13 03:16, Raymond Hettinger написав(ла):
I truly wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition :-)
I only asked about the reasons. Previous reasons seemed reasonable to me
and I wanted to know why a new code is better than the old. It will help
me to use the best style in other places.
Tha
Hi Raymond,
Thank you for your long explanation, it is exactly what Antoine asked
for :-) I like micro-optimization even if I know that some other
developers only see such work as noise, not providing an real speed up
:-) So it was interesting to read your email!
I'm sorry that you was injured by
2013/6/24 Raymond Hettinger :
> Lastly, there was a change I just put in to Py 3.4 replacing
> the memcpy() with a simple loop and replacing the
> "deque->" references with local variables. Besides
> giving a small speed-up, it made the code more clear
> and less at the mercy of various implementa
2013/6/24 Raymond Hettinger :
> Changing the BLOCKLEN from 62 to 64 is debatable.
> It measureably improved deque_index without an
> observable negative effect on the other operations.
Out of curiosity, do you know (remember) how was the number 62 chosen?
Is it a compromise between memory usage an
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:53:27PM +0200, richard.oudkerk wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/8dcc4e017d42
> + but should not cause any pratical difficulties -- you can always
^^ practical
> + infinitessimal delay before the queue's :meth:`~Queue.empty`
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:37:37 -0700
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> But it isn't worth all the second guessing (and what feels like sniping).
> I've worked on this code for almost a decade. As far as I can tell, none
> of the participants in this thread has ever previously shown any interest
> in the d
On 24/06/2013 7:30pm, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:53:27PM +0200, richard.oudkerk wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/8dcc4e017d42
+ but should not cause any pratical difficulties -- you can always
^^ practical
+ infinitessimal de
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:40:13 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20 PM, senthil.kumaran
>> > wrote:
>> >> .TP
>> >> +.BI "\-X " option
>> >> +Set im
3.3 adds some -X options around faulthandler if I recall correctly.
Alex
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:40:13 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:36
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:14:46 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:40:13 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20 PM, se
2013/6/24 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:40:13 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20 PM, senthil.kumaran
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2013/6/24 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:40:13 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski <
> fij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Brett Cannon
>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:33 PM, victor.stinner
wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/6b4d279508a3
> changeset: 84325:6b4d279508a3
> user:Victor Stinner
> date:Mon Jun 24 23:31:48 2013 +0200
> summary:
> Issue #9566: Fix a compiler warning in tupleiter_setstate() on Window
Ah yes correct, it should be better with the following commit:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3a393fc86b29
Victor
2013/6/24 Jeremy Kloth :
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:33 PM, victor.stinner
> wrote:
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/6b4d279508a3
>> changeset: 84325:6b4d279508a3
>> user:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM, victor.stinner
wrote:
> +#if defined(MS_WIN64) || defined(MS_WINDOWS)
This test could be reduced to simply `#ifdef MS_WINDOWS`. See PC\pyconfig.h
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/
2013/6/24 R. David Murray :
> There is one. -X faulthandler. I'm sure others would agree about
> -O, but that long predates -X.
FYI I didn't chose "-X" because it is specific to CPython, but just
because it becomes really hard to choose a random letter to add a new
option... I prefer long option
Oh, I didn't know that."if defined(MS_WIN64) || defined(MS_WINDOWS)"
is a common pattern in the Python source code. I simplified the #ifdef
in many places:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/dfc020b4b123
I also read that MS_WIN32 is always defined on Windows. "#ifdef
MS_WIN32" (used in many files, e
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:28:09AM +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2013/6/24 R. David Murray :
> > There is one. -X faulthandler. I'm sure others would agree about
> > -O, but that long predates -X.
>
> FYI I didn't chose "-X" because it is specific to CPython, but just
> because it becomes reall
On 25 Jun 2013 09:03, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:28:09AM +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > 2013/6/24 R. David Murray :
> > > There is one. -X faulthandler. I'm sure others would agree about
> > > -O, but that long predates -X.
> >
> > FYI I didn't chose "-X" because i
On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:07 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Out of curiosity, do you know (remember) how was the number 62 chosen?
> Is it a compromise between memory usage and performances? 62 is
> surprising because it is not a power of two :-)
>
> Is it to just have 64 (2+62) pointers in the struct
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:07 AM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, do you know (remember) how was the number 62 chosen?
> Is it a compromise between memory usage and performances? 62 is
> surpri
On Jun 24, 2013 9:11 PM, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:07 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
>>
>>> Out of curiosity, do you know (remember) how was the number 62 chosen?
>>> Is it a
2013/6/24 Guido van Rossum :
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:07 AM, Victor Stinner
>> wrote:
>>
>> Out of curiosity, do you know (remember) how was the number 62 chosen?
>> Is it a compromise between memory usage and performances? 62
23 matches
Mail list logo
