Bug #780807 is a complaint that strptime is now 1,200 times slower than a C library version the user used to have. Now slowdown is going to happen since Python string code can't compete with C string code, let alone _strptime has to figure out the locale info it needs while a C version has direct access. And I am sure people who now have strptime on their platform are not going to complain about performance. =) But 1,200 times is a little high. The new version I checked into HEAD is supposedly only 3 times slower than the equivalant C version according to the bug report submitter. This is mainly because of caching. My question is whether I should backport any of this. The new version of _strptime is thread-safe and has caching (2.3 is already thread-safe thanks to the loss of caching for that version). If I were to re-introduce caching (which was in 2.3 until a day before 2.3.0c2) I would need to also tweak other code to keep it thread-safe. In other words I would have to do more work than just throw back in the caching code with the addition of a thread lock. Is this considered a bugfix? The only reason I question whether it is since it is not a pure "bugfix" is because I know at least Raymond thought the code should have gone back in before 2.3.0 final went out. Had I not been so panicked about fixing that one bug the caching code would still be in there and I would be patching 2.3.1 to make it thread-safe instead of sending out this email. -Brett
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