12.07.18 08:43, INADA Naoki пише: > I'm working on making pyc stable, via stablizing marshal.dumps() > https://bugs.python.org/issue34093 This is not enough for making pyc stable. The order in frozesets still is arbitrary. > Sadly, it makes marshal.dumps() 40% slower. > Luckily, this overhead is small (only 4%) for dumps(compile(source)) case. What about the memory consumption? > So my question is: May I remove unstable but faster code? > > Or should I make this optional and we maintain two complex code? > If so, should this option enabled by default or not? My concern is that even if not make it optional, this will complicate the code. > For example, xmlrpc uses marshal. But xmlrpc has significant overhead > other than marshaling, like dumps(compile(source)) case. So I expect > marshal.dumps() performance is not critical for it too. xmlrpc doesn't use the marshal module. It uses terms marshalling and unmarshalling, but in different meaning. > Is there any real application which marshal.dumps() performance is critical? EVE Online is a well known example. What if write a script which loads .pyc files and stabilize them? This could solve the problem for applications which need stable .pyc files, with zero impact on common use.
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