Hi, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > I must admit I need a little help here. At what point is it the new > temps differ from the old temps?
They differ in that there is not currently a dedicated flow for temp allocation/deallocation between nodes at code generation time like there was one at pre-allocation time for the old temps. > another proposal: > > Get rid of the idea of a "temporary expression node" altogether. Yep, that doesn't lead anywhere. > - Each node still flags whether it needs a result variable (i.e. the > is_temp of today, or rather needs_target as I'll call it from here on). I never really understood what "is_temp" was supposed to mean, but "needs_target" sounds clear enough. > - Before the parent calls subexpr.generate_result_code, it has to check > subexpr.needs_target. If True, the parent must call > subexpr.set_target(some_cname) > > - If the parent doesn't have a variable handy to put the result in, it > needs to allocate a temp, hand it to the child for it to store its > result in, and finally release the temp when the result is no longer needed. That sounds like part of this could be automated with a good default. Sounds like a good proposal to me. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
