On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 05:23 , Christian Tismer wrote: > Meanwhile, I've implemented a really cheap solution. > By a small 3-line patch, _tkinter is able to tell > Stackless that it should better not split stacks > for the next N recursions. Works great! For that one case (tkinter), but not in general. Would it be possible to somehow restructure this the other way around, i.e. not slice stacks unless you know that all frames on the stack so far don't mind? I'm thinking of something similar to BEGIN_ALLOW_THREADS: any naive extension module whose author didn't know about Python threading will still work fine in a threaded Python, because it'll just hold on to the interpreter lock. If this is impossible (which I can well imagine) then at the very least we should have a macro KEEP_YOUR_DIRTY_FINGERS_OFF_MY_STACK() to tell stackless that you've given away stack addresses to some external package and you don't want your stack to be moved. -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
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