On 15/02/12 21:09, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> First, I've back-ported your patch on python 3.2.2 (which was relatively
> easy). Almost all tests pass, and those that don't are always failing on
> my machine if I remember. The patch can be found here: http://goo.gl/nSzzY
>
> Then, I compared memory footprint of one of our applications (300,000 LOC)
> and saw it about 6% less than on vanilla python 3.2.2 (660 MB of reserved
> process memory compared to 702 MB; Linux Gentoo 64bit) The application is
> written in heavy OOP style (for instance, ~1000 classes are generated by our
> ORM on the fly, and there are approximately the same amount of hand-written
> ones) so I hoped for a much bigger saving.
>
> As for the patch itself I found one use-case, where python with the patch
> behaves differently::
>
> class Foo:
> def __init__(self, msg):
> self.msg = msg
>
> f = Foo('123')
>
> class _str(str):
> pass
>
> print(f.msg)
> print(getattr(f, _str('msg')))
>
> The above snippet works perfectly on vanilla py3.2, but fails on the patched
> one (even on 3.3 compiled from your 'cpython_new_dict' branch) I'm not sure
> that it's a valid code, though. If not, then we need to fix some python
> internals to add exact type check in 'getattr', in the 'operator.getattr', etc.
> And if it is - your patch needs to be fixed. In any case, I propose to add
> the above code to the python test-suite, with either expecting a result or an
> exception.
Your code is valid, the bug is in my code.
I've fixed and updated the repository.
More tests to be added later.
Cheers,
Mark.
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