correction on my last email "but that list was never used"
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com>wrote: > So I spent two more hours on this this morning and finally got some good > results. > > a) I turned on _immutable_ = True on the Code object. Should have done > this before. > > Then I noticed that the trace contained the creation of the argument list, > but that that list was never made. The trace was also making a call out to > some C function so that it could do the array = [None] * argc. I couldn't > get that to go away even with promoting argc. So I changed pop_values to > this instead: > > def pop_values(frame, argc): > if argc == 0: > return Arguments([], argc) > elif argc == 1: > return Arguments([frame.pop()], argc) > elif argc == 2: > b = frame.pop() > a = frame.pop() > return Arguments([a, b], argc) > assert False > > Since Clojure only supports up to 20 positional arguments, that'll work > just fine. Now the last part of my trace consists of this: > > +266: label(p0, i26, p5, p7, p15, p17, i21, i25, descr=TargetToken > (4302275472)) > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'NO_OP') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'PUSH_LOCAL 0') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'PUSH_LOCAL 2') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'EQ') > +280: i27 = int_eq(i21, i26) > guard_false(i27, descr=<Guard0x1006f6480>) [p0, p5, p7, p15, p17, i26] > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'COND_JMP 26') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'PUSH_LOCAL 0') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'PUSH_CONST 1') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'PUSH_CONST 2') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'INVOKE 2') > debug_merge_point(1, 1, 'ADD') > +289: i28 = int_add(i25, i26) > debug_merge_point(1, 1, 'RETURN') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'STORE_LOCAL 0') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'JMP 6') > debug_merge_point(0, 0, 'NO_OP') > +295: jump(p0, i28, p5, p7, p15, p17, i21, i25, descr=TargetToken > (4302275472)) > > Which is exactly what I was looking for, an add and an eq. > > Thanks for the help everyone! > > Timothy > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Armin Rigo <ar...@tunes.org> wrote: > >> Hi Maciej, >> >> On 25 February 2014 09:09, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > ugh that looks really odd, why is p67 not removed escapes my attention >> >> Because we do setarrayitem and getarrayitem on non-constant indexes. >> >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Timothy Baldridge < >> tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm attaching a copy of my latest trace. The part I'm not happy with >> is at >> >> the end of the trace: >> >> We need tricks to avoid allocating the frame when we *leave* the >> function. In PyPy it can only be done if we know for sure that nobody >> can potentially grab a reference to the frame for later (e.g. via >> exceptions). I'm unsure to remember the latest version of this logic, >> but there were several ones... >> >> >> A bientôt, >> >> Armin. >> > > > > -- > "One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that-lacking > zero-they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C > programs." > (Robert Firth) > -- "One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that-lacking zero-they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." (Robert Firth)
_______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
