Message148260
| Author |
eric.araujo |
| Recipients |
alexis, brett.cannon, eric.araujo, ncoghlan, tarek |
| Date |
2011年11月24日.14:57:40 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.00025523975 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1322146661.37.0.178542215895.issue13473@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
(For the reference, the bug I added is this: http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c10946a17420#l6.45
p7g.util.byte_compile calls py_compile.compile with a filename ending in .pyc or .pyo as appropriate, but the optimization level in the py_compile.compile function depends on the calling Python’s -O option. When byte_compile wants to create a .pyo file but is run under a python without -O, it spawns a subprocess with the -O option. The fix I did made sure that the filename used (pyc or pyo) did not depend on the calling Python’s -O, *but* it should not have removed the setting of -O/-OO in the subprocess, as it’s the only way to control the optimization level in py_compile.compile before 3.2. I think I will use a py_compile or compileall function so that I can have control over the optimization level from Python, which will let me remove the inelegant spawning in byte_compile, and I will backport that function for distutils2.
If this makes no sense, please ignore. I’m not sure I would have understood what I’m talking about a year ago.) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年11月24日 14:57:41 | eric.araujo | set | recipients:
+ eric.araujo, brett.cannon, ncoghlan, tarek, alexis |
| 2011年11月24日 14:57:41 | eric.araujo | set | messageid: <1322146661.37.0.178542215895.issue13473@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年11月24日 14:57:40 | eric.araujo | link | issue13473 messages |
| 2011年11月24日 14:57:40 | eric.araujo | create |
|