[pypy-svn] r15997 - pypy/extradoc/minute
hpk at codespeak.net
hpk at codespeak.net
Fri Aug 12 10:00:07 CEST 2005
Date: Fri Aug 12 10:00:00 2005
New Revision: 15997
minutes of the pypy-sync meeting yesterday
please correct/extend, if necessary, as soon as possible.
i am going to send a note to pypy-dev later on.
--- (empty file)
+++ pypy/extradoc/minute/pypy-sync-08-11-2005.txt Fri Aug 12 10:00:00 2005
@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
+pypy-sync developer meeting 4th August 2005
+ Samuele Pedroni,
+ Adrien Di Mascio,
+ Ludovic Aubrien,
+ Carl Friedrich Bolz,
+ Niklaus Heidimann,
+ Eric van Riet Paap,
+ Holger Krekel (minutes/moderation)
+ later: Richard Emslie, Michael Hudson,
+ Armin Rigo, Christian Tismer
+with pre info::
+ Anders Lehmann
+- roll call. holger opens the meeting.
+- activity reports (3 prepared lines of info).
+ All Attendees submitted activity reports (see `IRC-Log`_
+ at the end and 'LAST/NEXT/BLOCKERS' entries in particular)
+- resolve conflicts/blockers
+ No direct conflicts were discovered. Compliancy work was
+ discussed under its own topic.
+Topics of the week
+re / array status
+Niklaus reports that _sre is feature-complete and passes
+compliance tests. It's running mostly at application leve
+and is thus quite slow. Niklaus is moving bits and pieces
+to interpreter-level but it is not clear how the main
+dispatching loop could be transformed this way (and especially
+making it non-norecursive). Advice and comments welcome.
+Niklaus will basically not be available until the Heidelberg sprint.
+Niklaus also reports that the array module is passing
+the tests but lives fully at applevel. An open question
+is how C data type sizes are modeled in PyPy. Samuele
+notes that this depends on how we plan to interact
+with user extensions. It is agreed that this particular
+data-type size question is a post-0.7 issue.
+Eric reports that the llvm is progressing steadily. There are
+currently 10 exception raising operations left to implement.
+Also some external (suggested_primitive) functions need to
+be implemented as well as 64 bit support. The benchmarks
+richards and bpnn can produce standalone executables
+While working on the llvm backend, three bugs in the LLVM
+tool chain itself were discovered, reported and fixed by
+the LLVM guys very quickly. The current llvm file
+can be found at http://codespeak.net/~ericvrp/download.
+Eric thinks that a PyPy standalone version based on LLVM
+is not far away! Everybody agrees that next week it would
+make sense to plan an LLVM track (among other tracks)
+for the Heidelberg sprint.
+GC and threading
+Two important aspects of the translated PyPy version
+regard Garbage Collection and Threading. We planned
+for having both GC and threading implemented as
+translation aspects. While Carl is working on GC
+(during his SoC project) we have no translation-aspect
+code yet regarding threading integration.
+Carl reports that the pure simulator already works.
+There is an Address class that provides raw access
+to memory which should be used by the actual GC implementations.
+This class is annotated with SomeAddress. On top of
+this is the 'lltypesimulator', a class that behaves
+like the _ptr type of pypy/rpython/lltype. Next
+is implementing GC hooks into the llinterp and
+then actually writing GC implementations.
+An open issue is that the rtyper/specializer needs
+to be extended to work with the new GC classes.
+Regarding threading there are various aspects
+where discussion started:
+- support for "import thread" and the according API
+ at Python level could be regarded as a different
+ issue than providing new (stackless) threading techniques.
+ However, it's probably also possible (Armin thinks)
+ to offer this API on top of a stackless implementations.
+- threading support at the moment is (according to
+ Samuele) more about how we can weave translation
+ aspects into the translation machinery. Samuele
+ also emphasizes that supporting os-level threads means
+ quite some debugging work, also judging from Jython
+ experiences which offers free threading.
+more discussion is scheduled to happen at the technical
+board meeting friday 12th August and probably best
+more on pypy-dev itself (see Armin's `posting`_ and the
+.. _posting: http://codespeak.net/pipermail/pypy-dev/2005q3/002257.html
+FYI: codespeak migration status
+The migration of codespeak.net got postponed because the
+target machine's network connectivity is not satisfying yet
+(latency and dropped packets problems). However, commits
+are now mirrored to the new machine which is basically
+ready to take over in case the current machine gets problems.
+It's possible that the services get migrated without
+prior announcements (unless people really think it's
+neccessary to pre announce that accordingly).
+This issue was postponed due to time restrictions
+but it was mostly informational anyway.
+Holger closes the meeting in time at 13:30pm.
+.. _`IRC-log`: :
+Here is the full IRC log::
+ Aug 11 12:40:10 --> You are now talking on #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:00:51 <hpk> ok, let's start?
+ Aug 11 13:01:01 <cfbolz> yes
+ Aug 11 13:01:08 <hpk> here is the agenda:
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> - roll call.
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> - activity reports (3 prepared lines of info).
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> - resolve conflicts/blockers
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> *Topics of the week*
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> - re / array status
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> - llvm status
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> - GC and threading
+ Aug 11 13:01:11 <hpk> - codespeak migration status
+ Aug 11 13:01:27 <hpk> i propose the following order for activity reports:
+ Aug 11 13:01:33 <hpk> arigo, aleale, hpk, adim, cfbolz, ericvrp, nik, pedronis
+ Aug 11 13:01:44 --- You are now known as arigo
+ Aug 11 13:01:50 <arigo> DONE: random small stuff; mostly done: proper exc handling in rtyper
+ Aug 11 13:01:50 <arigo> NEXT: to be decided on the technical board meeting
+ Aug 11 13:01:50 <arigo> BLOCKERS: -
+ Aug 11 13:01:56 <ludal> hi
+ Aug 11 13:01:59 --- You are now known as aleale
+ Aug 11 13:02:05 <aleale> PREV: Compliance tests
+ Aug 11 13:02:05 <aleale> NEXT: Compliance tests
+ Aug 11 13:02:05 <aleale> BLOCKERS: None
+ Aug 11 13:02:31 <aleale> too many nick changes :-)
+ Aug 11 13:02:36 <aleale> adim, can you continue?
+ Aug 11 13:02:40 <adim> LAST: astbuilder (starting to have good results)
+ Aug 11 13:02:40 <adim> NEXT: holidays
+ Aug 11 13:02:40 <adim> BLOCKERS: none
+ Aug 11 13:02:49 --- You are now known as hpk
+ Aug 11 13:03:00 <hpk> LAST: codespeak.net migration, mentoring/user support
+ Aug 11 13:03:00 <hpk> NEXT: some more codespeak-migration, open issues, at least three non-pypy days
+ Aug 11 13:03:00 <hpk> BLOCKERS: None
+ Aug 11 13:03:16 <ludal> PREV: none/helping adrien
+ Aug 11 13:03:17 <ludal> NEXT: not much more
+ Aug 11 13:03:17 <ludal> BLOCKERS: none
+ Aug 11 13:03:35 <cfbolz> LAST: polished my lltype implementation on top of the memory simulation: it works quite well now (only 9 tests of all tests that use llinterp fail)
+ Aug 11 13:03:35 <cfbolz> NEXT: implement a GC for the llinterp
+ Aug 11 13:03:35 <cfbolz> BLOCKERS: None
+ Aug 11 13:03:45 <ericvrp> last: progressing on full pypy translation with llvm
+ Aug 11 13:03:46 <ericvrp> next: finishing external functions and exception raising operations
+ Aug 11 13:03:48 <ericvrp> issues: possibly other llvm bugs
+ Aug 11 13:03:55 <nik> LAST: _sre and array tuning
+ Aug 11 13:04:00 <nik> NEXT: not much, will be at a conference in brussels from sunday until the sprint
+ Aug 11 13:04:04 <nik> BLOCKERS: none
+ Aug 11 13:04:22 <pedronis> Last: 2.4.1 tests, open issues, float ops/math and errors, a bit of tracker gardening, slottified lltype
+ Aug 11 13:04:24 <pedronis> Next: ll_math.h error handling, ?
+ Aug 11 13:04:25 <pedronis> Blockers: -
+ Aug 11 13:04:38 <hpk> ok, thanks, there seems to be no blockers ...
+ Aug 11 13:04:50 <cfbolz> except llvm bugs :-(
+ Aug 11 13:04:59 <hpk> and except that some of the compliance work was a bit re-recommiting
+ Aug 11 13:05:08 <hpk> but we can talk about this at the sprint or some other time i think
+ Aug 11 13:05:23 <hpk> so on to the next topic: re / array status
+ Aug 11 13:05:29 --> rxe (n=rxe at client-82-14-80-179.manc.adsl.virgin.net) has joined #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:05:33 <rxe> hi
+ Aug 11 13:05:33 <nik> ok
+ Aug 11 13:05:41 <nik> _sre is feature-complete and fully compliant
+ Aug 11 13:05:47 <hpk> rxe: we are in re/array status
+ Aug 11 13:05:49 <nik> only problem: it's very slow ;)
+ Aug 11 13:06:03 <nik> i'm slowly migrating some code to interp-level to improve that
+ Aug 11 13:06:11 <hpk> but the core is running at applevel still?
+ Aug 11 13:06:16 <nik> yes
+ Aug 11 13:06:22 <hpk> (i am not too accustomed to how re works internally)
+ Aug 11 13:06:36 <nik> the core dispatcher loop is at app-level
+ Aug 11 13:06:50 <hpk> you basically have a plan how to put this to interp level?
+ Aug 11 13:07:00 <nik> no
+ Aug 11 13:07:03 <nik> it might be hard
+ Aug 11 13:07:09 <nik> to do it non-recursive
+ Aug 11 13:07:20 <nik> but not impossible
+ Aug 11 13:07:34 <hpk> so would you need some helping advices from your mentors?
+ Aug 11 13:07:55 <nik> yes
+ Aug 11 13:08:06 <nik> i think this is best discussed at the sprint
+ Aug 11 13:08:12 --> mwh (N=user at 82-33-185-193.cable.ubr01.azte.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:08:14 <nik> as i will not have much time to work on it before that anyway
+ Aug 11 13:08:17 <hpk> ok, especially since you will be away since then
+ Aug 11 13:08:18 <hpk> right
+ Aug 11 13:08:24 <hpk> then a few words about array?
+ Aug 11 13:08:42 <hpk> mwh: hi, we are in the re/array topic already
+ Aug 11 13:08:42 <nik> array is also compliant
+ Aug 11 13:08:51 <nik> fully app-level at the moment
+ Aug 11 13:09:00 <mwh> (i'm late and also only planning on lurking sorry)
+ Aug 11 13:09:00 <nik> there are conceptual issues:
+ Aug 11 13:09:18 <nik> do we respect a machine's C data type sizes?
+ Aug 11 13:09:24 <nik> ie the bytesize of a short int?
+ Aug 11 13:09:41 <nik> or is pypy like a vm with fixed data type sizes?
+ Aug 11 13:09:56 <nik> currently sizes are fixed, both in array and in struct
+ Aug 11 13:10:08 <hpk> good question, pedronis, do you happen to have an opinion on that?
+ Aug 11 13:10:23 <pedronis> well, the fact is that those aspects are related to interaction with other ext (possibly user) modules
+ Aug 11 13:10:44 <pedronis> so until we have a model for that is hard to answer
+ Aug 11 13:10:46 <nik> yes. if a user dumps arrays to disk from CPython
+ Aug 11 13:10:54 <nik> and tries to read them with pypy's array
+ Aug 11 13:10:58 <nik> stuff can break at the moment
+ Aug 11 13:11:14 <nik> but it's a hard problem as array/struct assume a C backend
+ Aug 11 13:11:17 --> arigo (n=odie at bch-ma-195.epfl.ch) has joined #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:11:18 <hpk> i guess we should treat this question as a post-0.7 issue
+ Aug 11 13:11:27 <pedronis> yes
+ Aug 11 13:11:39 <hpk> arigo: we are at the end of the re/array topic
+ Aug 11 13:11:53 <hpk> ok, thanks Niklaus, then next topic: llvm status, eric?
+ Aug 11 13:12:03 <hpk> (or rxe for that matter)
+ Aug 11 13:12:06 <ericvrp> this is my prepared text:
+ Aug 11 13:12:07 <ericvrp> The LLVM backend is progressing slowly but steadily. We currently have about 10 exception raising operations todo,
+ Aug 11 13:12:09 <ericvrp> which is straightforward. The other open issue is the handful of external (suggested_primitive) functions that need
+ Aug 11 13:12:10 <ericvrp> to be implemented. After a standalone version works, we need to refactor (of
+ Aug 11 13:12:12 <ericvrp> course) and make the thing work on 64bit machines as well.
+ Aug 11 13:12:13 <ericvrp> The benchmarks bpnn and Richards produce standalone executables already. (python llvm2/demo/richards l)
+ Aug 11 13:12:15 <ericvrp> We encountered three bugs in the LLVM toolchain which after being reported to the LLVM team were all fixed very quickly. Which, in a way, gives me a good feeling. But discovering, reporting and waiting for fixes/workaround is what is costing us most of the time currently. I hope to have a working standalone mid next-week.
+ Aug 11 13:12:17 <ericvrp> The current llvm file can be found at http://codespeak.net/~ericvrp/download
+ Aug 11 13:12:58 <hpk> wow, i am impressed with the progress
+ Aug 11 13:13:07 <cfbolz> me as well. very cool!
+ Aug 11 13:13:31 <hpk> and you reported some 3 times being faster on richards/bpnn, right?
+ Aug 11 13:13:52 <ericvrp> the only progress that counts (pypy) is still to come and I am not 100% sure if that will work first time round as did the C backend
+ Aug 11 13:14:07 <hpk> well, the C backend didn't work exactly first time around :-)
+ Aug 11 13:14:17 <ericvrp> about the speed: I don't know if the C backend does any gcc optimizations currently?!?
+ Aug 11 13:14:28 <ericvrp> richard?
+ Aug 11 13:14:31 <rxe> hpt: I think I reported the speed increase.
+ Aug 11 13:14:37 <rxe> hpk
+ Aug 11 13:14:45 <hpk> ericvrp: the 337 pystones where with -O2 i think
+ Aug 11 13:15:02 <ericvrp> I have seen no llvm pystone benchmark results
+ Aug 11 13:15:09 <cfbolz> and for richard/bpnn?
+ Aug 11 13:15:16 <rxe> however i had modify bpnn to get speed increases
+ Aug 11 13:15:31 <rxe> for/range to while loops
+ Aug 11 13:15:35 <hpk> ah, ok, nevermind, that's not too important right now but interesting neverhteless
+ Aug 11 13:15:49 <hpk> feel free to report any breakthroughts to pypy-dev, please
+ Aug 11 13:16:03 <ericvrp> ok
+ Aug 11 13:16:08 <rxe> :-)
+ Aug 11 13:16:09 <hpk> i think it will make sense to have a "llvm" track at the heidelberg sprint
+ Aug 11 13:16:26 <rxe> yes - I would like to see some unification of the backends
+ Aug 11 13:16:39 <hpk> indeed, we should discuss this next week in some detail, i think
+ Aug 11 13:16:39 <rxe> with the external functions and test esp
+ Aug 11 13:16:49 <rxe> ok
+ Aug 11 13:16:56 <ericvrp> yes -
+ Aug 11 13:17:18 <hpk> ok, let's rush to the next topic: GC and threading
+ Aug 11 13:17:28 <hpk> there is a mail from armin on pypy-dev
+ Aug 11 13:17:43 <hpk> and carl, can you say a few words regarding GC and how it is supposed to integrate into PyPy?
+ Aug 11 13:17:56 <cfbolz> I am not that far yet :-(
+ Aug 11 13:18:02 <cfbolz> I did some groundwork, and hope that I can now actually start to work writing GCs
+ Aug 11 13:18:07 --> stakkars (i=mtsnwcw at i528C1380.versanet.de) has joined #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:18:19 <hpk> cfbolz: so you are at the pure simulator still
+ Aug 11 13:18:27 <cfbolz> there is an Address class that provides raw access to memory and should be used by the GC implementation. this class is annotated with SomeAddress
+ Aug 11 13:18:35 <cfbolz> hpk: yes
+ Aug 11 13:18:40 <cfbolz> there is a memory simulator that simulates the address' behaviour
+ Aug 11 13:18:52 <cfbolz> on top of this there is the lltypesimulator: a class that behaves like the _ptr type of lltype
+ Aug 11 13:19:17 <cfbolz> the next thing I'm doing is imeplemting GC hooks into the llinterp for the
+ Aug 11 13:19:29 <cfbolz> and then actually write a GC
+ Aug 11 13:19:37 <cfbolz> there is still quite some stuff left:
+ Aug 11 13:19:56 <cfbolz> the rtyper has to be extended to work with the GC stuff
+ Aug 11 13:20:13 <cfbolz> plus some more unsolved problems
+ Aug 11 13:20:30 <hpk> i see, but i guess you are in consultation with Samuele there
+ Aug 11 13:20:37 <cfbolz> of course
+ Aug 11 13:21:14 <hpk> ok, arigo, and all, i have a question regarding threading
+ Aug 11 13:21:14 <cfbolz> one other problem:
+ Aug 11 13:21:21 <cfbolz> no go on
+ Aug 11 13:21:40 <hpk> doesn't it make sense to divide the discussion into "import thread" support and "new threading facilities"?
+ Aug 11 13:22:15 <hpk> i mean we do need to offer the thread module, and e.g. stackless ideas or having multiple object spaes is a different issue, isn't it?
+ Aug 11 13:22:32 <stakkars> yes
+ Aug 11 13:23:24 <hpk> arigo, pedronis: i am fine with raising and discussing this on pypy-dev, though, if further immediate comments cannot be made
+ Aug 11 13:23:34 <pedronis> well, you could hava import thread threads as user level threads
+ Aug 11 13:23:58 <stakkars> too bad that I missed the begining
+ Aug 11 13:24:11 <hpk> pedronis: but that might already violate assumptions regarding compliancy?
+ Aug 11 13:24:34 <hpk> stakkars: this is just the first discussion, more to follow and the pypy-dev thread is there as well
+ Aug 11 13:24:40 <pedronis> I don't think that threadidng is a compliancy problem
+ Aug 11 13:24:52 <pedronis> is more about showing what translating can achieve
+ Aug 11 13:24:58 <pedronis> at the moment
+ Aug 11 13:24:58 <stakkars> nor do I. It is an option which can be turned off
+ Aug 11 13:25:19 <hpk> pedronis: i see the point but i am not sure i 100% agree
+ Aug 11 13:25:39 <arigo> hpk: I think we can emulate the thread module with stackless translation
+ Aug 11 13:25:59 <arigo> just by switching tasklets automatically every N bytecodes
+ Aug 11 13:26:21 <hpk> maybe
+ Aug 11 13:26:25 <pedronis> well, supporting os threads means potentially quite some debugging
+ Aug 11 13:26:35 * hpk notes 4 minutes left
+ Aug 11 13:26:35 <stakkars> yes, I think so, too. I did some tests and theoretical musings.
+ Aug 11 13:26:37 <pedronis> threads are not nice that way
+ Aug 11 13:26:48 <stakkars> may I drop my 3 lines?
+ Aug 11 13:26:56 <hpk> yes
+ Aug 11 13:27:01 <rxe> cant we introduce OS threads and GIL except for IO?
+ Aug 11 13:27:02 <pedronis> Jython has free
+ Aug 11 13:27:23 <stakkars> DONE: integrated the new marshal module. Wrote exact string_to_float, moved it to interp-level, did some tests and theory about how to stackless
+ Aug 11 13:27:32 <stakkars> NEXT: write a book chapter on PyPy
+ Aug 11 13:27:39 <stakkars> BLOCK: time consumption due to memory fotprint and swapping, hard to track side effects of certain statements on the annotator
+ Aug 11 13:28:05 <hpk> ok, let's continue gc+threading at pypy-dev and at the technical board meeting, last topic (3 minutes left)
+ Aug 11 13:28:10 <pedronis> Jython has free threading but is all quite delicate
+ Aug 11 13:28:19 <stakkars> the blocker is muc better since I pushed arigo/pedronis to slotify
+ Aug 11 13:28:40 <hpk> codespeak.net migration is half-done
+ Aug 11 13:28:48 <pedronis> well, slottifying lltype killed 150m of memory usage
+ Aug 11 13:28:56 <hpk> svn commits are mirrored to code2.codespeak.net seconds after the commit on the main hosts happens
+ Aug 11 13:29:01 <stakkars> yes, I noticed.
+ Aug 11 13:29:08 <pedronis> I don't know what happens combined with compacting node.py
+ Aug 11 13:29:20 * hpk stops with the topic
+ Aug 11 13:29:37 <hpk> stakkars, pedronis: are you reading my comments?
+ Aug 11 13:29:48 <stakkars> where?
+ Aug 11 13:29:54 <cfbolz> here
+ Aug 11 13:29:57 <hpk> well, i tried to move to the next topic
+ Aug 11 13:30:04 <hpk> but you conitnued with the old topic
+ Aug 11 13:30:04 <stakkars> which is it
+ Aug 11 13:30:13 <hpk> pypy-sync has a very tight schedule
+ Aug 11 13:30:35 <hpk> in fact, the meeting is closed now
+ Aug 11 13:30:54 <hpk> it
+ Aug 11 13:31:09 <hpk> pypy-sync is just for synchronisation not for full blown content discussions
+ Aug 11 13:31:13 * stakkars wonders why hpk wasted the rest instead of moving on
+ Aug 11 13:31:35 * pedronis to make his point
+ Aug 11 13:32:26 <rxe> can i post 3 lines (sorry I was late)?
+ Aug 11 13:32:29 <rxe> DONE: tiny llvm stuff
+ Aug 11 13:32:29 <rxe> NEXT: llvm refactors / organise sprint travelling
+ Aug 11 13:32:29 <rxe> BLOCKERS: new laptop
+ Aug 11 13:33:01 <hpk> thanks, i'll add it to the minutes
+ Aug 11 13:33:16 <cfbolz> bye
+ Aug 11 13:33:20 <hpk> see you
+ Aug 11 13:33:21 <stakkars> bye
+ Aug 11 13:33:22 <adim> bye
+ Aug 11 13:33:24 <mwh> bye
+ Aug 11 13:33:24 <rxe> bye
+ Aug 11 13:33:25 <ericvrp> bye
+ Aug 11 13:33:30 <ludal> bye
+ Aug 11 13:33:35 <-- mwh (N=user at 82-33-185-193.cable.ubr01.azte.blueyonder.co.uk) has left #pypy-sync ("ERC Version 5.0 (CVS) $Revision: 1.767 $ (IRC client for Emacs)")
+ Aug 11 13:33:36 <-- stakkars (i=mtsnwcw at i528C1380.versanet.de) has left #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:33:39 <-- adim (n=adim at logilab.net2.nerim.net) has left #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:33:42 <-- nik (n=chatzill at 184.108.40.206.cust.bluewin.ch) has left #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:33:43 <-- rxe (n=rxe at client-82-14-80-179.manc.adsl.virgin.net) has left #pypy-sync
+ Aug 11 13:33:49 <-- cfbolz (n=a at b0bar.physi.uni-heidelberg.de) has left #pypy-sync ("Leaving")
+ Aug 11 13:33:50 <-- ericvrp (N=chatzill at ericvrp.demon.nl) has left #pypy-sync
More information about the Pypy-commit