[Python-Dev] Anyone building Python --without-doc-strings? (original) (raw)

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Mon Jan 28 00:30:24 CET 2013

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com>wrote:

Why don't you compile using python -OO and distribute only .pyo code?

Because .pyo files can be much larger than necessary, e.g. using my mnfy project on decimal (with --safe-transforms) compared to -OO yields::

224K Lib/decimal.py 200K Lib/pycache/decimal.cpython-34.pyc 120K Lib/pycache/decimal.cpython-34.pyo 80K decimal-mnfy.py

And before you ask, the bytecode is still larger on the minified source.

So if you truly want to shrink your binary plus overall memory usage footprint you want to go beyond -OO sometimes (although it is a cheap, fast way to save if you are not explicitly striving to eek out every byte).

-Brett

-Brett

Victor 2013/1/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson <kristjan at ccpgames.com>: > 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 at python.org] On Behalf Of R. David Murray > Sent: 27. janúar 2013 00:38 > To: python-dev at python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Anyone building Python --without-doc-strings? > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:19:32 +0100, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:03:59 +0100 >> Stefan Krah <stefan at bytereef.org> wrote: >> > Stefan Krah <stefan at bytereef.org> 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 PyDOCSTR() 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 at 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 at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/victor.stinner%40gmail.com

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130127/9704332b/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list