RetroSearch Browse

Fri Feb 8 12:43:34 EST 2019 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-February/156254.html

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:19:14 -0600
Neil Schemenauer <nas-python at arctrix.com> wrote:
> On 2019-02-06, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > For maximum synergy between these initiatives and the resulting APIs,
> > it is better if things are done in the open ;-)  
> 
> Hi Antoine,
> 
> It would be good if we could have some feedback from alternative
> Python implementations as well.  I suspect they might want to 
> support these APIs.  Doing zero-copy or sharing memory areas could
> be a challenge with a compacting GC, for example.  In that case,
> having something in the API that tells the VM that a certain chunk
> of memory cannot move would be helpful.

Both PEP 574 and Davin's shared-memory work build on top of the
PEP 3118 buffer API.  So I would expect that any Python implementation
with support for the buffer API to have the required infrastructure
to also support those initiatives.  The details may deserve to be
clarified, though. I'll try to send an e-mail and ask for feedback.

Regards

Antoine.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-February/156254.html below:

[Python-Dev] About the future of multi-process Python