Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Hm, actually I think I see the answer; in the case of module-level code there can be no "anonymous local variables" the way there can in functions.
Why not? There's still a frame object associated with the call of the anonymous function holding the module's top-level code. The compiler can allocate locals in that frame, even if the user's code can't.
I guess you'd need to also have a "reset stack to level X" opcode, then, and both it and the set-handler opcode would have to be placed at every destination of a jump that crosses block boundaries. It's not clear how big a win that is, due to the added opcodes even on non-error paths.
Only exceptions and break statements would require stack pointer adjustment, and they're relatively rare. I don't think an extra opcode in those cases would make much of a difference.
-- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
