> > 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". OK, I just looked, and I agree. BTW, for those who want to look, the URL is: http://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=101104&group_id=5470 This is currently assigned to Barry. Barry, can you see if this is truly fit for inclusion? Or am I missing something? Note that there's a companion patch that adds a memory profiler: http://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=101229&group_id=5470 Should this also be applied? Is there a reason why it shouldn't? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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