Thanks, Nick!
I'll let this sink in today and give it a shot tomorrow.
Have a great weekend,
--diana
> * Switch to your suggested "set-of-strings" API at the Python level,
> with the Python level integer interface retained only for backwards
> compatibility
> * Keep the current integer-based
On 4 October 2017 at 01:42, Diana Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Well, this is not really a bitfield, but a bitfield plus some irregular
>> hardcoded values. Therefore I don't think it brings much in the
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:42:40 -0600
Diana Clarke
wrote:
> - mixed-bag -X options are less discoverable than just adding a
> new command line option (like -N or -OOO)
For such a feature, I think being less discoverable is not really a
problem. I don't think many
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Well, this is not really a bitfield, but a bitfield plus some irregular
> hardcoded values. Therefore I don't think it brings much in the way of
> discoverability / understandability.
>
> That said, perhaps it makes
On 1 October 2017 at 22:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> 2. We could reinterpret "optimize" as a bitfield instead of a regular
>> integer, special casing the already defined values:
>>
>> - all zero: no optimizations
>> - sign bit set: negative -> use global settings
>> - 0x0001:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:33:11 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> That said, we may also want to consider a couple of other options
> related to changing the meaning of *existing* parameters to these
> APIs:
>
> 1. We have the PyCompilerFlags struct that's currently only used to
>
On 9/30/2017 4:36 PM, Diana Clarke wrote:
In the mean time, I've re-opened the following pull request that can
be merged independent of these changes (it's just additional test
coverage).
trivial: add test coverage for the __debug__ case (optimization levels)
In the mean time, I've re-opened the following pull request that can
be merged independent of these changes (it's just additional test
coverage).
trivial: add test coverage for the __debug__ case (optimization levels)
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/3450
Please let me know if I
Oh, I like this idea!
I had very briefly considered treating the existing flag as a
bitfield, but then promptly forgot to explore that line of thought
further.
I'll play with that approach next week, see where it takes me, and
then report back.
Thanks so much for taking the time to think this
On 9/28/17 2:48 PM, Diana Clarke wrote:
Hi folks:
I was recently looking for an entry-level cpython task to work on in
my spare time and plucked this off of someone's TODO list.
"Make optimizations more fine-grained than just -O and -OO"
There are currently three supported optimization
On 29 September 2017 at 05:02, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:48:15 -0600
> Diana Clarke
> wrote:
>>
>> 2) Added a new command line option N that allows you to specify
>> any number of individual optimization flags.
>>
>>
Perhaps I should be a bit clearer.
When I said the "level 3" approach "appears to be inline with the
direction Victor Stinner is going in for PEP 511", it was mostly at a
superficial level. Meaning:
- PEP 511 still appears to use integer (unnamed) optimization levels
for alternate transformers
Yup. I referenced your pep a few times in a previous off-list email,
but I omitted that paragraph from this pass because I was using it to
bolster the previous "level 3" idea (which didn't fly).
"""
This simple approach to new optimization levels also appears to be
inline with the direction
> 2) Added a new command line option N that allows you to specify
> any number of individual optimization flags.
>
> For example:
>
> python -N nodebug -N noassert -N nodocstring
You may want to look at my PEP 511 which proposes to add a new "-o"
option to specify a list of
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:48:15 -0600
Diana Clarke
wrote:
>
> 2) Added a new command line option N that allows you to specify
> any number of individual optimization flags.
>
> For example:
>
> python -N nodebug -N noassert -N nodocstring
We could
15 matches
Mail list logo