On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Armin Rigo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anatoly, > > On 19 March 2014 09:47, anatoly techtonik <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Unsure what you want to do, but isn't os.fork() the answer to your >>> first question? >> >> Yes, but on a interpreter level, independent of underlying platform. > > What is the motivation for avoiding os.fork()?
I'd gladly use it as a quick hack to solve my unit-testing performance problem, but I am on Windows, so I had to think about ideal case. > It's possible to do something like that in RPython, if you ignore all > the additional complications like tracking raw-memory too; it looks > like an infinite amount of painful work to me, but well, it's not my > time :-) Fair point. =) I am thinking about bytecode machine. Virtualization software like virtualbox allow to save state at run-time and restore it later at the exact point - continue to run the system from the moment it was saved. And they do this in incremental way - keeping track of what memory and disk have been touched. So, can interpreter, while playing bytecode, do keep track of these things and save/restore the state the same way? Is that possible currently? If not, then why and what can be done? _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
