Hello, On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:55:12 +0100 Stefan Krah wrote:

I've subverted the build master authority on the FreeBSD-9.0 bot by exporting with_doc_strings=no. This is to test #16143 and #10156.

Well... Speaking personally, I'd much rather stop shipping and "supporting" such obscure build options. I'd like to hear about people using production Pythons --without-doc-strings. Regards Antoine.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:07:14 +1000 Nick Coghlan wrote:

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

Hello,

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:55:12 +0100 Stefan Krah wrote:

...

I've subverted the build master authority on the FreeBSD-9.0 bot by exporting with_doc_strings=no. This is to test #16143 and #10156.

Well... Speaking personally, I'd much rather stop shipping and "supporting" such obscure build options. I'd like to hear about people using production Pythons --without-doc-strings.

I was going to suggest that folks like the PyMite developers might use it to create versions that run in severely constrained environments, but it looks like they wrote their interpreter from scratch instead.

On the other hand, I've definitely heard at least a few people talking about using -OO to drop docstrings as a technique to reduce memory consumption. Some of these failures would likely show up there as well.

Using -OO is far less extreme than building your own Python with docstrings disabled. And the test suite already passes with -OO: http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Mountain%20Lion%20Optimized%... Regards Antoine.

Stefan Krah wrote:

I'm not sure how accurate the output is for measuring these things, but according to ``ls'' and ``du'' the option is indeed quite worthless:

./configure CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.8M Jan 26 16:36 python ./configure --without-doc-strings CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.6M Jan 26 16:33 python

The original contribution *was* in fact aiming for "10% smaller", see: http://docs.python.org/release/2.3/whatsnew/node20.html So apparently people thought it was useful. Stefan Krah

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:19:32 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:03:59 +0100 Stefan Krah wrote:

...

Stefan Krah wrote:

...

I'm not sure how accurate the output is for measuring these things, but according to ``ls'' and ``du'' the option is indeed quite worthless:

./configure CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.8M Jan 26 16:36 python ./configure --without-doc-strings CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.6M Jan 26 16:33 python

The original contribution *was* in fact aiming for "10% smaller", see:

http://docs.python.org/release/2.3/whatsnew/node20.html

So apparently people thought it was useful.

After a bit of digging, I found the following discussions: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-November/018444.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-January/019392.html http://bugs.python.org/issue505375

Another reason for accepting the patch seemed to be that it introduced the Py_DOCSTR() macros, which were viewed as helpful for other reasons (some people talked about localizing docstrings).

I would point out that if 200 KB is really a big win for someone, then Python (and especially Python 3) is probably not the best language for them.

It is also ironic how the executable size went up since then (from 0.6 to more than 1.5 MB) :-)

200K can make a difference. It does on the QNX platform, for example, where there is no virtual memory. It would be nice to reduce that executable size, too....but I'm not volunteering to try (at least not yet) :) --David

Why don't you compile using python -OO and distribute only .pyo code? Victor 2013/1/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson :

We (CCP) are certainly compiling python without docstrings for our embedded platforms (that include the PS3) Anyone using python as en engine to be used by programs and not users will appreciate the deletion of unneeded memory. K

-----Original Message----- From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames.com@python.org] On Behalf Of R. David Murray Sent: 27. janúar 2013 00:38 To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Anyone building Python --without-doc-strings?

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:19:32 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:03:59 +0100 Stefan Krah wrote:

...

Stefan Krah wrote:

...

I'm not sure how accurate the output is for measuring these things, but according to ``ls'' and ``du'' the option is indeed quite worthless:

./configure CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.8M Jan 26 16:36 python ./configure --without-doc-strings CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.6M Jan 26 16:33 python

The original contribution *was* in fact aiming for "10% smaller", see:

http://docs.python.org/release/2.3/whatsnew/node20.html

So apparently people thought it was useful.

After a bit of digging, I found the following discussions: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-November/018444.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-January/019392.html http://bugs.python.org/issue505375

Another reason for accepting the patch seemed to be that it introduced the Py_DOCSTR() macros, which were viewed as helpful for other reasons (some people talked about localizing docstrings).

I would point out that if 200 KB is really a big win for someone, then Python (and especially Python 3) is probably not the best language for them.

It is also ironic how the executable size went up since then (from 0.6 to more than 1.5 MB) :-)

200K can make a difference. It does on the QNX platform, for example, where there is no virtual memory. It would be nice to reduce that executable size, too....but I'm not volunteering to try (at least not yet) :)

--David _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/kristjan%40ccpgames.com

_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/victor.stinner%40gmail.com

We do that, of course, but compiling python without the doc strings removes those from all built-in modules as well. That's quite a lot of static data. K -----Original Message----- From: Victor Stinner [mailto:victor.stinner@gmail.com] Sent: 27. janúar 2013 21:58 To: Kristján Valur Jónsson Cc: R. David Murray; python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Anyone building Python --without-doc-strings? Why don't you compile using python -OO and distribute only .pyo code? Victor 2013/1/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson :

We (CCP) are certainly compiling python without docstrings for our embedded platforms (that include the PS3) Anyone using python as en engine to be used by programs and not users will appreciate the deletion of unneeded memory. K

-----Original Message----- From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames.com@python.org] On Behalf Of R. David Murray Sent: 27. janúar 2013 00:38 To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Anyone building Python --without-doc-strings?

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:19:32 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:03:59 +0100 Stefan Krah wrote:

...

Stefan Krah wrote:

...

I'm not sure how accurate the output is for measuring these things, but according to ``ls'' and ``du'' the option is indeed quite worthless:

./configure CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.8M Jan 26 16:36 python ./configure --without-doc-strings CFLAGS="-Os -s" LDFLAGS="-s" && make 1.6M Jan 26 16:33 python

The original contribution *was* in fact aiming for "10% smaller", see:

http://docs.python.org/release/2.3/whatsnew/node20.html

So apparently people thought it was useful.

After a bit of digging, I found the following discussions: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-November/018444.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-January/019392.html http://bugs.python.org/issue505375

Another reason for accepting the patch seemed to be that it introduced the Py_DOCSTR() macros, which were viewed as helpful for other reasons (some people talked about localizing docstrings).

I would point out that if 200 KB is really a big win for someone, then Python (and especially Python 3) is probably not the best language for them.

It is also ironic how the executable size went up since then (from 0.6 to more than 1.5 MB) :-)

200K can make a difference. It does on the QNX platform, for example, where there is no virtual memory. It would be nice to reduce that executable size, too....but I'm not volunteering to try (at least not yet) :)

--David _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/kristjan%40ccpgames. com

_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/victor.stinner%40gma il.com