Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
What can I do to move this forward? I believe all concerns have been addressed
and it seems ready to me.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Here's a new patch which addresses Éric's last comments.
Antoine, I don't have at my disposal a system without multiprocessing support.
How does it crash?
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34400/issue16104_5.patch
Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
Here's a new patch which addresses Éric's last comments.
Antoine, I don't have at my disposal a system without multiprocessing
support. How does it crash?
Neither do I, but you will probably get an ImportError of some sort.
--
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Here's a new version which catches ImportError for concurrent.futures and
raises ValueError in `compile_dir` if `processes` was specified and
concurrent.futures is unavailable. The only issue is that I don't know if this
should be a ValueError or not. For
Changes by Claudiu.Popa pcmantic...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34404/issue16104_7.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Thank you for the review, Éric! Here's the updated patch.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34368/issue16104_1.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
Éric Araujo added the comment:
FTR, py_compile and compileall use importlib in 3.4.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Changes by Claudiu.Popa pcmantic...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34381/issue16104_2.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Éric Araujo added the comment:
This looks ready to me.
One thing: “make -j0” is the spelling for “run using all available cores”,
whereas “compileall -j0” will use one process. I don’t know if this should be
documented, changed or ignored.
--
stage: patch review - commit review
Brett Cannon added the comment:
I vote for changed so that -j0 uses all available cores as os.cpu_count()
states.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
I agree. I'll modify the patch.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Claudiu.Popa pcmantic...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34383/issue16104_3.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Éric Araujo added the comment:
+if args.processes = 0:
Is that correct? For make, I think I’ve always seen “-j0”, not negative values.
Could you add a test for -j0? (i.e. check that “compileall -j0” calls the
function with “processes=os.cpu_count()”)
--
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
regrtest does that, checking for j =0.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Here's a test for j0 == os.cpu_count.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34384/issue16104_4.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
Importing ProcessExecutor at the top-level means compileall will crash on
systems which don't have multiprocessing support.
--
nosy: +pitrou
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Éric Araujo added the comment:
Patch looks good. Some comments on Rietveld.
--
nosy: +eric.araujo
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:
--
stage: - patch review
type: - enhancement
versions: +Python 3.5 -Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Changes by Claudiu.Popa pcmantic...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34339/issue16104.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
Claudiu.Popa added the comment:
Hello!
Here's a draft patch. It adds a new *processes* parameter to *compile_dir* and
a new command line parameter as well.
--
keywords: +patch
nosy: +Claudiu.Popa
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file33079/compileall_v1.patch
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
assignee: brett.cannon -
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
assignee: - brett.cannon
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
New submission from Daniel Holth:
compileall would benefit approximately linearly from additional CPU cores.
There should be an option.
The noisy output would have to change. Right now it prints compiling and then
done synchronously with doing the actual work.
--
messages: 171744
Brett Cannon added the comment:
This should probably use concurrent.futures instead of multiprocessing
directly, but yes it would be useful.
Then again, the whole module should probably be rewritten to use importlib as
well.
--
components: +Library (Lib)
nosy: +brett.cannon
priority:
Changes by Steven D'Aprano steve+pyt...@pearwood.info:
--
nosy: +stevenjd
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16104
___
___
25 matches
Mail list logo
