On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 11.03.2011 15:08:
>>
>> Vitja Makarov, 11.03.2011 15:04:
>>>
>>> 2011/3/11 Stefan Behnel:
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think it would be nice to keep up Python's semantics, but
>>>> when
>>>> I implemented this I broke quite some code in Sage (you may have noticed
>>>> that the sage-build project in Hudson has been red for a while). There
>>>> are
>>>> things in C and especially in C++ that cannot be easily copied into a
>>>> temporary variable in order to make sure they are evaluated before the
>>>> following arguments. This is not a problem for Python function calls
>>>> where
>>>> all arguments end up being copied (and often converted) anyway. It is a
>>>> problem for C function calls, though.
>>>
>>>> f(g(a), a.x, h(a))
>>>
>>> Why could not this be translated into:
>>>
>>> tmp1 = g(a)
>>> tmp2 = a.x
>>> tmp3 = h(a)
>>>
>>> f(tmp1, tmp2, tmp3)
>>
>> See above.
>
> To be a little clearer here, it's a problem in C for example with struct
> values. Copying them by value into a temp variable can be expensive,
> potentially twice as expensive as simply passing them into the function
> normally.
Yep, and some types (e.g. array types) can't be assigned to at all.
FWIW, the issues with Sage is that many libraries use the "stack
allocated, pass-by-reference" trick
typedef foo_struct foo_t[1]
but we have declared them to be of type "void*" because we don't care
about or want to muck with the internals. Cleaning this up is
something we should do, but is taking a while, and aside from that it
makes Cython even more dependent on correct type declarations (and
backwards incompatible in this regard). Sage is a great test for the
buildbot, so keeping it red for so long is not a good thing either.
> Not sure what kind of additional devilry C++ provides here, but I'd expect
> that object values can exhibit bizarre behaviour when being assigned. Maybe
> others can enlighten me here.
Yes, C++ allows overloading of the assignment operator, so assigning
may lead to arbitrary code (as well as probably an expensive copy, as
with structs, and structs in C++ are really just classes with a
different visibility).
> I have no idea how many cases there actually are that we can't handle or
> that may lead to a performance degradation when using temps, but the problem
> is that they exist at all.
Note that this applies not just to function arguments, but a host of
other places, e.g. the order of evaluation of "f() + g()" in C is
unspecified. Fleshing this out completely will lead to a lot more
temps and verbose C code. And then we'd just cross our fingers that
the C compiler was able to optimize all these temps away (though still
possibly producing inferior code if it were able to switch order of
execution).
Whatever we do, we need a flag/directive. Perhaps there's a way to
guarantee correct ordering for all valid Python code, even in the
presence of (function and variable) type inference, but allow some
leeway for explicitly declared C functions.
- Robert
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
