Craig Citro | 13 Aug 10:04 2010
Picon

[Cython] Cython 0.13.beta1

Hi all,

So here's a second go at Cython 0.13 beta. I'm posting it to the usual
place, namely:

  http://www.cython.org/release/Cython-0.13.beta1.tar.gz

This definitely still isn't ready to go out the door, hence the "beta"
instead of "rc." A few notes:

 * We've been running into an interesting problem with rare (~0.05% of
the time) segfaults on Sage startup. Interestingly, this has
apparently been around a while -- Robert and I have run a handful of
tests, and this behavior was already there with Cython-0.12.1. (We
didn't try to bisect at all, we just wanted to confirm that it wasn't
completely new.) Our not-completely-scientific analysis suggests that
the rate of segfaults hasn't changed since the last Cython release, so
our current plan is to get this release (finally!) out the door, and
then start trying to diagnose this further. There are some questions
about whether or not this might be hardware-related, but given how
rare the failures are, I don't think we've really run the tests
anywhere enough to say we're *not* seeing the same problem elsewhere.

 * Since it seems like every third email to cython-users has confusion
about bool being a C++ vs. Python type as its root cause, Robert's
gone ahead and made bool an invalid type identifier. (This is already
pushed, so this might not be news.) The plan is to simply make the
types explicit for now (which Robert has already done, see cimport
cpython.bool and libcpp.bool) and decide later whether or not bool
should be a valid identifier by itself. I'm going to add a FAQ entry
(Continue reading)

Carl Witty | 13 Aug 17:33 2010
Picon

Re: [Cython] Cython 0.13.beta1

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Craig Citro <craigcitro@...> wrote:
>  * We need to clean up the last of the fallout from #561 -- if I'm
> reading the corresponding thread correctly, Carl's got a fix for that
> we need to push. If so, Carl, feel free to push that. (My machine is
> currently rebuilding Sage, so I can't test this myself.)

As far as I know, I don't have write access to the Cython repositories.

Carl
Robert Bradshaw | 13 Aug 17:38 2010

Re: [Cython] Cython 0.13.beta1

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Carl Witty <carl.witty@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Craig Citro <craigcitro@...> wrote:
>>  * We need to clean up the last of the fallout from #561 -- if I'm
>> reading the corresponding thread correctly, Carl's got a fix for that
>> we need to push. If so, Carl, feel free to push that. (My machine is
>> currently rebuilding Sage, so I can't test this myself.)
>
> As far as I know, I don't have write access to the Cython repositories.

You do now--just use your trac username/password.

- Robert
Craig Citro | 13 Aug 17:45 2010
Picon

Re: [Cython] Cython 0.13.beta1

> As far as I know, I don't have write access to the Cython repositories.
>

E-mail me an .htpasswd file and I'll fix that. ;)

-cc
Carl Witty | 13 Aug 23:03 2010
Picon

Re: [Cython] Cython 0.13.beta1

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<robertwb@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Carl Witty <carl.witty@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Craig Citro <craigcitro@...> wrote:
>>>  * We need to clean up the last of the fallout from #561 -- if I'm
>>> reading the corresponding thread correctly, Carl's got a fix for that
>>> we need to push. If so, Carl, feel free to push that. (My machine is
>>> currently rebuilding Sage, so I can't test this myself.)
>>
>> As far as I know, I don't have write access to the Cython repositories.
>
> You do now--just use your trac username/password.

Thanks!  OK, I pushed my patch.

Carl
Stefan Behnel | 13 Aug 15:19 2010
Picon

Re: [Cython] Cython performance bug for special functions

Robert Bradshaw, 27.07.2010 21:43:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> Very, very cool. I've actually been thinking a lot about this myself
>>> (given the recent thread in sage-devel). I think one reason we did our
>>> own wrappers was for introspection/docstrings--does that break? Did
>>> you fix the most egregious __getattr__?
>>
>> Yes, this does break docstrings on these functions.  I think this
>> could be fixed; for instance, by creating our own statically-declared
>> wrapperbase/slotdef structs that have the right docstring, and
>> creating our own wrapper objects using these structs.  I could try to
>> work on this, but probably not soon enough for 0.13.
>
> Well, for special methods, I consider this kind of performance
> degradation to be a more important issue than introspection.

I just compiled lxml with the current cython-devel and the resulting module 
failed during initialisation when it tried to retrieve the docstring for a 
"__getattr__" method when building the automatically generated __test__ 
dict. Seeing that I used this, I'm pretty sure others did, too. So we will 
clearly break user code with this change.

So, I'm -1 on applying the change for 0.13 without keeping the 
functionality compatible with what we had before. This is a pure 
optimisation, so it must not break code.

Stefan

Gmane