On Apr 10, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Michael Hudson wrote: > James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> writes: > >> On Apr 10, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: >> >>> Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> writes: >>> >>>> Is there a good reason to *not* call PyEval_InitThreads when using a >>>> threaded Python? >>> >>> Well, it depends how expensive ones OS's locking primitives are, I >>> think. There were some numbers posted to the twisted list recently >>> that showed it didn't make a whole lot of difference on some platform >>> or other... I don't have the knowledge or the courage to make that >>> call. >>> >>>> Sounds like it would just be easier to implicitly call it during >>>> Py_Initialize some day. >>> >>> That might indeed be simpler. >> >> Here's the numbers. It looks like something changed between python 2.2 >> and 2.3 that made calling PyEval_InitThreads a lot less expensive. So, >> it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference on recent versions >> of Python. > > Thanks. I see similar results for 2.3 and 2.4 on OS X (don't have 2.2 > here). > > It's very much a guess, but could this patch: > > [ 525532 ] Add support for POSIX semaphores > > be the one to thank? No, Mac OS X doesn't implement POSIX semaphores. -bob
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