OSDir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[no subject]


I recommend giving up, closing the issue as "won't fix", recommending
to use JSON, and moving on. Sometimes a change is just not worth the
effort.

--Guido

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Artyom Skrobov <Artyom.Skrobov at arm.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This is a monthly ping to get a review on http://bugs.python.org/issue26415
> -- ?Excessive peak memory consumption by the Python parser?.
>
>
>
> Following the comments from July, the patches now include updating Misc/NEWS
> and compiler.rst to describe the change.
>
>
>
> The code change itself is still the same as a month ago.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Artyom Skrobov
> Sent: 07 July 2016 15:44
> To: python-dev at python.org; steve at pearwood.info; mafagafogigante at gmail.com;
> greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
> Cc: nd
> Subject: RE: Python parser performance optimizations
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This is a monthly ping to get a review on http://bugs.python.org/issue26415
> -- ?Excessive peak memory consumption by the Python parser?.
>
> The first patch of the series (an NFC refactoring) was successfully
> committed earlier in June, so the next step is to get the second patch, ?the
> payload?, reviewed and committed.
>
>
>
> To address the concerns raised by the commenters back in May: the patch
> doesn?t lead to negative memory consumption, of course. The base for
> calculating percentages is the smaller number of the two; this is the same
> style of reporting that perf.py uses. In other words, ?200% less memory
> usage? is a threefold shrink.
>
>
>
> The absolute values, and the way they were produced, are all reported under
> the ticket.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Artyom Skrobov
> Sent: 26 May 2016 11:19
> To: 'python-dev at python.org'
> Subject: Python parser performance optimizations
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Back in March, I?ve posted a patch at http://bugs.python.org/issue26526 --
> ?In parsermodule.c, replace over 2KLOC of hand-crafted validation code, with
> a DFA?.
>
>
>
> The motivation for this patch was to enable a memory footprint optimization,
> discussed at http://bugs.python.org/issue26415
>
> My proposed optimization reduces the memory footprint by up to 30% on the
> standard benchmarks, and by 200% on a degenerate case which sparked the
> discussion.
>
> The run time stays unaffected by this optimization.
>
>
>
> Python Developer?s Guide says: ?If you don?t get a response within a few
> days after pinging the issue, then you can try emailing
> python-dev at python.org asking for someone to review your patch.?
>
>
>
> So, here I am.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)