Here's the corresponding tracker issue:
http://bugs.python.org/issue4347
I've uploaded a patch there anyway, since I'm going to need this stuff
working for a presentation I'm giving tomorrow.
Cheers,
T
Thomas Lee wrote:
Hi all,
Currently, Parser/parsetok.c has a depe
Hi all,
Currently, Parser/parsetok.c has a dependency on graminit.h. This can
cause headaches when rebuilding after adding new syntax to
Grammar/Grammar because parsetok.c is part of pgen, which is responsible
for *generating* graminit.h.
This circular dependency can result in parsetok.c us
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
Hi!
I'm looking at trunk/Python/sysmodule.c, function PySys_SetArgv(). In that
function, there is code like this:
PyObject* path = PySys_GetObject("path");
...
if (path != NULL) {
...
}
My intuition says that if path==NULL, something is very wrong. At least
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
Hi!
I'm looking at trunk/Python/sysmodule.c, function PySys_SetArgv(). In that
function, there is code like this:
PyObject* path = PySys_GetObject("path");
...
if (path != NULL) {
...
}
My intuition says that if path==NULL, something is very wrong. At least
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Thomas Lee vector-seven.com> writes:
By the way, you were right about JUMP_IF_TRUE/JUMP_IF_FALSE. It's far
too late. Apologies.
I'm still pretty sure this is the peepholer's doing,
Yes indeed.
Which is what's being achieved with
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net> writes:
In http://bugs.python.org/issue2459 ("speedup for / while / if with better
bytecode") I had the same problem and decided to change the lnotab format so
that line number increments are signed bytes rather than unsigned.
By the wa
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hi,
Hi. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I can even respond before
I have to drag myself off to bed. :)
I'm making some good progress with the AST optimizer, and now the main
thing standing in my way is lnotab. Currently lnotab expects bytecode
sequencing t
I'm making some good progress with the AST optimizer, and now the main
thing standing in my way is lnotab. Currently lnotab expects bytecode
sequencing to be roughly in-sync with the order of the source file and a
few things that the optimizer does (e.g. swapping the bodies of an
if/else after
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Jakob,
This looks fairly correct. A few comments below.
Control Flow
The calling sequence is:
main() (in python.c) -> Py_Main() (main.c) -> PyRun_FooFlags() (pythonrun.c) ->
run_bar() (pythonrun.c) -> PyEval_EvalCode() (ceval.c) -> PyEval_EvalCodeEx()
(ce
Georg Brandl wrote:
We can of course decide to make assignment to True and False
illegal in 2.7 :)
Georg
Great to know that's an option. There's little-to-no chance of this
making 2.6.
I might just avoid trying to treat True/False as "real" constants until
there's been a proper discussio
Georg Brandl wrote:
Remember that it must still be possible to write (in 2.6)
True = 0
assert not True
Ah of course. Looks like I should just avoid optimizations of
Name("True") and Name("False") all together. That's a shame!
Cheers,
T
Georg
Thomas Lee schrieb
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Thomas Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The simplest options I can think of to remedy this:
1. A setattr hack: setattr(__import__(__name__), "True", True)
2. Remove all optimization of Name("True") and
Option 4 just struck me: only optimize Name nodes if they have a Load
ctx. This makes even more sense: in a Store context, we almost
invariably want the name rather than the constant.
Cheers,
T
Thomas Lee wrote:
My work on the AST optimizer has led me down the path of attempting to
replace
ards #3 at the moment as it seems like it's going to be
the cleanest approach and makes a lot of sense -- at least on the
surface. Can anybody think of problems with this approach?
Cheers,
T
Thomas Lee wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The question is, what is the specification for Pyt
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The question is, what is the specification for Python.
Now, that's a more interesting question than the question originally
asked (which I interpreted as "why does it work the way it works").
The only indication in the specification of that feature I could find
was:
Tony Nelson wrote:
At 4:46 PM +0100 6/9/08, Michael Foord wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
The problem is more general: what if a member (of some external
object we're proxying one way or another) is named print (in Python <
3), or class, or...? To allow foo.print or bar.class would requir
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I haven't looked at that code recently, but I believe the ADSL
sequence in the assignment node is for statements where there are
actually multiple assignment targets, such as:
>>> p = x, y = 1, 2
>>> p, x, y
((1, 2), 1, 2)
Cheers,
Nick.
Ah I see. A quick test verifies
In porting one of the old peephole optimizations to the new AST compiler
I noticed something weird going on with the following code:
a, b, c = 1, 2, 3
Now, as you would expect this gets parsed into an Assign node. That
Assign node looks like the following:
Assign.targets = [Tuple(Name(a), Na
I was debating whether this was truly a question for python-dev or if I
should take it to one of the user lists. Ultimately it feels like a
question about the implementation of a core module, so hopefully nobody
minds me posting it here. :)
Although not listed as a public API method in the doc
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
While not strictly related to the global statement, perhaps Adam
refers to the possibility of optimizing away code with an assignment
which would make a name be recognized as local? If you're worried
about "yield" disappearing you should also be worried
Adam Olsen wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Thomas Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are a lot of micro-optimisations that are actually context
independent, so moving them before the symtable pass should be quite
feasible - e.g. replacing "return
Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are a lot of micro-optimisations that are actually context
independent, so moving them before the symtable pass should be quite
feasible - e.g. replacing "return None" with "return", stripping dead
code after a return statement, changing a "if not" statement into an
Nick Coghlan wrote:
As Thomas mentions in a later message, making it possible to annotate
nodes would permit Functions to be annotated as being a generator at
the AST stage (currently it is left to the bytecode compiler's
symtable generation pass to make that determination).
Although I gues
I'm in the process of writing C code for the purposes of traversing AST
nodes in the AST optimization branch.
This seems to be an ideal case for code generation based on the ASDL
representation of the AST as we're currently doing for Python-ast.[ch].
I'm already considering this approach for s
The next problem that cropped up during the implementation of the AST
code optimizer is related to branch elimination and the elimination of
any code after a return.
Within a FunctionDef node, we would (ideally) like to blow away If nodes
with a constant - but false - test expression. e.g.:
The next problem that cropped up during the implementation of the AST
code optimizer is related to branch elimination and the elimination of
any code after a return.
Within a FunctionDef node, we would (ideally) like to blow away If nodes
with a constant - but false - test expression. e.g.:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
This leaves us with a few options:
5. Reuse/Abuse Num(object) for arbitrary constants.
AFAICT, this should work out of the box.
Eek. It *does* seem like Num would work out of the box, but would this
be a good idea?
What about *replacing* Num with Const? Mig
Hi all,
I've been working on optimization of the AST, including the porting of
the old bytecode-level optimizations to the AST level. A few questions
have come up in the process of doing this, all of which are probably
appropriate for discussion on this list. The code I'm referring to here
ca
Just a thought, but it would be great if this could be implemented over
the top of a C layer that operates on real AST nodes (rather than the
PyObject representation of those nodes). I'm working on stuff to perform
code optimization at the AST level (see the tlee-ast-optimize branch),
and the f
Anyone in Melbourne, Australia keen for the first sprint? I'm not sure
if I'll be available, but if I can it'd be great to work with some
others. Failing that, it's red bull and pizza in my lounge room :)
I've been working on some neat code for an AST optimizer. If I'm free
that weekend, I'll
Anybody in Melbourne keen for this? Not sure if I'll be able to make it
myself, but I'd be interested to know if there's anybody in the area
keen to do the sprint.
Cheers,
T
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Michael Foord
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Trent Nelson wro
Michael Foord wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> I'm asking a Py3k question on python-dev because I'd like to have
>> opinions from people who haven't thought about Py3k much yet. Consider
>> the following example:
>>
>> class C:
>> def foo(self): pass
>>
>> C.foo(42)
>>
>> This cur
Hi all,
In reference to:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1514451&group_id=5470&atid=105470
I wrote a patch for this "bug", but a valid point was raised by Ronald
Oussorren: this borders on being more of a "feature" than a bug fix,
although - IMHO - this fix improves c
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 05:53:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thomas> As the subject of this e-mail says, the attached patch adds a
> Thomas> "switch" statement to the Python language.
>
> Thanks for the contribution. I patched my sandbox and it built just fine.
> I'm going out
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:33:49PM +0200, Michael Walter wrote:
> Maybe "switch" became a keyword with the patch..
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
That's correct.
> On 6/12/06, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Could you upload your patch to SourceForge ? Then I could add
> > it to the
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 05:53:14PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * Aside from the modified Grammar file there is no documentation.
> * There are no test cases.
> * Can you submit a patch on SourceForge?
All have been addressed, although I'm not sure if I've covered
everywhere I nee
Hi,
Just a quick question: how can I add new future keywords to Python? I
need to add a new (Python) keyword to the language, but there seems to
be a few different source files that I need to modify.
Just want to make sure I'm doing it the right way before I go unleashing
a nasty broken patch
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Greg Ewing wrote:
>
>
>>Neal Norwitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm mostly convinced that using PyObjects would be a good thing.
>>>However, making the change isn't free as all the types need to be
>>>created and this is likely quite a bit of code.
>>>
>>>
>>Since they're
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
>Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Thomas Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Even if it meant we had just one function call - one, safe function call
>>>that deallocated all the memory allocated within a func
Portability may also be an issue to take into consideration:
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q7.32.html
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2001-05/1305.html
Cheers,
Tom
Alex Martelli wrote:
>On Nov 17, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>...
>
>
>>>alloca?
>>>
>>>(duck)
>
NULL);
assert(finally != NULL);
result_st = TryFinally(pool, body, finally, LINENO(n));
if (result_st == NULL)
AST_FAILURE(pool, NULL);
}
/* pool deallocated when c->pool is deallocated */
return AST_SUCCESS(pool, result_st);
}
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Thoma
By the way, I liked the sound of the arena/pool tree - really good idea.
Thomas Lee wrote:
>Niko Matsakis wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Boy am I wanting RAII from C++ for automatic freeing when scope is
>>>left. Maybe we need to come up with a similar thing, like all memory
Niko Matsakis wrote:
>>Boy am I wanting RAII from C++ for automatic freeing when scope is
>>left. Maybe we need to come up with a similar thing, like all memory
>>that should be freed once a scope is left must use some special struct
>>that stores references to all created memory locally and then
As the writer of the crappy code that sparked this conversation, I feel
I should say something :)
Brett Cannon wrote:
>On 11/15/05, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>On 11/15/05, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for the message. I was going to suggest t
Interesting trick!
The PEP 341 patch is now using Marek's 'do ... while' resource cleanup
trick instead of the nasty goto voodoo.
I've also fixed the last remaining bug that Neal pointed out. I'm
running the unit tests right now, shall have the updated (and hopefully
final) PEP 341 patch up on
Hi all,
I've been using Python for a few years and, as of a few days ago,
finally decided to put the effort into contributing code back to the
project.
I'm attempting to implement PEP 341 (unification of try/except and
try/finally) against HEAD. However, this being my first attempt at a
chang
46 matches
Mail list logo
