Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com> writes: > > Michael Hudson wrote: > > > > > > The use > > > of Vladimir Marangoz's obmalloc patch in some of the benchmarks > > > sparked a discussion about whether this patch should be incorporated > > > into Python 2.1. There was support from many for adding it on an > > > opt-in basis, since when nothing has happened... > > > > ... I'm still waiting on BDFL pronouncement on this one. The plan > > was to check it in for beta1 on an opt-in basis (Vladimir has written > > the patch this way). > > > > -- > > Marc-Andre Lemburg > > If it is truly opt-in (supposedly a configure option?), I'm all for > it. It is very much opt-in. > I recall vaguely though that Jeremy or Tim thought that the patch > touches lots of code even when one doesn't opt in. That was a no-no > so close before the a2 release. Anybody who actually looked at the > code got an opinion on that now? I suggest looking at the patch. Not at the code, but what it does as a diff: 1) Add a file Objects/obmalloc.c 2) Add stuff to configure.in & config.h to detect the --with-pymalloc argument to ./configure 3) Conditionally #include "obmalloc.h" in Objects/object.c if WITH_PYMALLOC is #defined 4) Conditionally #define the variables in Include/objimpl.h to #define the #defines needed to override the memory imiplementation if WITH_PYMALLOC is #defined And *that's it*. That's not my definition of "touches a lot of code". Cheers, M. -- Or here's an even simpler indicator of how much C++ sucks: Print out the C++ Public Review Document. Have someone hold it about three feet above your head and then drop it. Thus you will be enlightened. -- Thant Tessman
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4