Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> Imagine that we have a secondary copy of the bytecode in the cache inside the > code object and we mutate that instead. The key difference with the current > cache infrastructure is that we don't accumulate all the optimizations on the > same opcode, which can be very verbose. Instead, we change the generic opcode > to a more specialised to optimize and we change it back to deoptimize. Yeah, I follow. As long as we keep the original list of opcodes we're good ;) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42115> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
