> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:46:59AM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > Executive Summary: obmalloc will allow more efficient GC and we
> > > should try hard to get it into 2.1.
> >
> > Can you do it before the 2.1b1 release? We're planning that for this
> > Thursday, May 1st. Three days!
>
> What has to be done besides applying the patch and adding a
> configure option? I can do that tonight if you give the green
> light.
Sure. Green light is on, modulo objections from Barry (who
technically has this assigned -- but I believe he'd be happy to let
you do the honors).
I thought that I read in your mail that you were proposing changes
first for better GC integration -- but I must've misread that.
> > > Is the only issue with obmalloc treading? If so, what do we do to
> > > resolve this?
> >
> > 1. Yes, I think so. 2. It currently relies on the global interpreter
> > lock. That's why we want to make it an opt-in configuration option
> > (for now). Does that work with your proposed GC integration?
>
> Opt-in is fine for now.
OK.
So what about the optional memory profiler, on Jeremy's plate?
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=401229&group_id=5470&atid=305470
I'm sure Jeremy would also love it if someone else took care of this
-- he's busy with the future_statement implementation.
--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