Pypy, Python 3.x is lagging behind a lot. Python 3.5 is a version we should be Evolving to so Is there any planned timeline for Pypy Python 3.x ?
I don't have a timeline (and as far as I know pypy-dev doesn't either), but I do intend to help push this forwards however I can. (I am brand new at this though) Work is progressing on 3.3. There's no point in trying to immediately work on 3.5, because all changes needed for 3.3 will mostly all need to be made for 3.5 anyway. As always in open source, if you want it faster, feel free to jump in and help. : )
Hi, On 2016-01-06 13:43, Phyo Arkar wrote:
Pypy, Python 3.x is lagging behind a lot. Python 3.5 is a version we should be Evolving to so Is there any planned timeline for Pypy Python 3.x ?
There is no official timeline. My personal roadmap, as one of the main contributors in the last months, is the following: 1) Regularly merge default into the py3k branch, adapting code to Python 3.x as necessary, trying to keep the buildbots green. 2) Implement missing features / fixing bugs in the py3.3 branch when I have time and motivation. 3) In any case, the py3.3 branch will be merged back into py3k and closed before or at the beginning of the Leysin sprint. A new branch py3.5 will be opened to create many opportunities for newcomers at the sprint. Many people have asked why we have a py3k branch, currently implementing Python 3.2, a version almost nobody uses. The point is to see easily whether a test failure resulted from the last merge from the default branch, or was failing a potentially long time before. This helps making sure we don't accumulate failing tests over time. -Manuel
Hi, so far this issue is not resolved. Sadly the argument is that I/we probably do not handle the return type of libffi correctly. Let me explain the problem (again). For instance in the test [1] the case lltype.FuncType([rffi.Short, rffi.Short], rffi.Short). Here is what happens step by step (if not readable in the mail see [3]): jit compiles trace: <trace call> -- parameter (1213,1213) both 64-bit | v ffi_closure_SYSV | v ffi_closure_helper_SYSV (1) | v < enters ctypes> closure_fcn <callback.c> | v _CallPythonObject <callback.c> | v <calls the python function that returns 1213+1213 = 2426 as 64bit integer> (2) | v <calls h_set [2]. good, because we instructed it to do this> (3) contents of the buffer of (1) before the call: 0xdeadbeefdeadbeef contents of the buffer of (1) after the call: 0xdeadbeefdead097a || vv returns every frame back to <trace call> and saves 0xdeadbeefdead097a in the variable e.g. i42 = call_i(..., 1213, 1213) (1) provides the stack location (3) writes the result to (2) leads into ll2types.py internal_callback and returns 2426L My understanding is that: libffi expects that <trace call> should, just after returning the 64 bit value, cast the result to a 16 bit value. We cannot do that! AFAIK the jit has no notion of a narrower integer type than the machine register. The only exception is loading and storing from/to memory that are later sign extended. Any suggestions? Cheers, Richard [1] rpython/jit/backend/test/runner_test.py:test_call [2] https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/1fe0fd9feb6a4472a9a1b186502eb9c0b2366... [3] http://paste.pound-python.org/show/hvcqL68eqUApEH0PhnuG/
Hi Richard, On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Richard Plangger <planrichi@gmail.com> wrote:
<trace call> -- parameter (1213,1213) both 64-bit <calls the python function that returns 1213+1213 = 2426 as 64bit integer> (2)
Do you mean in both cases 16-bit integer instead of 64-bit integer?
returns every frame back to <trace call> and saves 0xdeadbeefdead097a
My understanding is that: libffi expects that <trace call> should, just after returning the 64 bit value, cast the result to a 16 bit value. We cannot do that!
If I understand correctly, you can do exactly that. After a call instruction to a function that returns a 16 bits result, simply add another instruction to sign- or zero-extend the result to a full 64-bit value. Surely it is not a performance problem to add a single simple instruction after some rare calls? In more details: my point of view is that libffi is *documented* to return the value 0x000000000000097a, but instead it returns 0xdeadbeefdead097a. It's a bug in libffi, but maybe one that is not going to be fixed promptly. In that case, you can simply work around it. Specifically, after a "call_i" instruction that should return a 16-bit number: the official ABI says it should return 0x000000000000097a; when called via ctypes it returns 0xdeadbeefdead097a instead; so go for the careful solution and only assume that the last 16 bits are valid, and emit an instruction just after the call to sign- or zero-extend the result from 16 bits to 64 bits. Then you can leave the issue in the hands of libffi for s390x and not be annoyed if it doesn't get fixed. A bientôt, Armin.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Richard Plangger <planrichi@gmail.com> wrote:
<trace call> -- parameter (1213,1213) both 64-bit <calls the python function that returns 1213+1213 = 2426 as 64bit integer> (2)
Do you mean in both cases 16-bit integer instead of 64-bit integer?
returns every frame back to <trace call> and saves 0xdeadbeefdead097a
My understanding is that: libffi expects that <trace call> should, just after returning the 64 bit value, cast the result to a 16 bit value. We cannot do that!
If I understand correctly, you can do exactly that. After a call instruction to a function that returns a 16 bits result, simply add another instruction to sign- or zero-extend the result to a full 64-bit value. Surely it is not a performance problem to add a single simple instruction after some rare calls?
In more details: my point of view is that libffi is *documented* to return the value 0x000000000000097a, but instead it returns 0xdeadbeefdead097a. It's a bug in libffi, but maybe one that is not going to be fixed promptly. In that case, you can simply work around it. Specifically, after a "call_i" instruction that should return a 16-bit number: the official ABI says it should return 0x000000000000097a; when called via ctypes it returns 0xdeadbeefdead097a instead; so go for the careful solution and only assume that the last 16 bits are valid, and emit an instruction just after the call to sign- or zero-extend the result from 16 bits to 64 bits. Then you can leave the issue in the hands of libffi for s390x and not be annoyed if it doesn't get fixed.
libffi is *documented* to return the non sign-extended value. - David
Hi,
libffi is *documented* to return the non sign-extended value.
I have fixed this issue at the call site. The caller sign/zero extends narrower integer types. The reason I did not change it to that in the first place is: I thought that it is not easy to determine this information at the callsite (because it is not done in any other backend). Apparently it is available. Cheers, Richard
Hi Richard, On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Richard Plangger <planrichi@gmail.com> wrote:
I have fixed this issue at the call site. The caller sign/zero extends narrower integer types. The reason I did not change it to that in the first place is: I thought that it is not easy to determine this information at the callsite (because it is not done in any other backend). Apparently it is available.
It is done in the x86 backend. See load_result() in x86/callbuilder.py, which abuses load_from_mem() to emit an instruction MOV(S|Z)X(bits) for sign- or zero extension. It is also done in the arm backend, where load_result() calls self._ensure_result_bit_extension(). A bientôt, Armin.
Hi David, On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:28 PM, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
In more details: my point of view is that libffi is *documented* to return the value 0x000000000000097a, but instead it returns 0xdeadbeefdead097a.
libffi is *documented* to return the non sign-extended value.
Ok. I think my confusion came from the fact that we have to tell ffi whether values are signed or unsigned. As far as I can tell, this would be only useful in order to sign- or zero-extend the result value, if it did. (The docs included with libffi-3.2.1.tar.gz don't seem to say anything about that, which would make us both wrong---this specific behavior is not documented at all. I may be missing a point; please correct me in that case.) A bientôt, Armin.
participants (6)
-
Armin Rigo -
David Edelsohn -
Manuel Jacob -
marky1991 . -
Phyo Arkar -
Richard Plangger