At 08:07 PM 10/14/2005 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > > A more > > compact scheme is possible, by using two tables - a bytecode->line > > number table, and a line number-> file table. > > > > If you have to encode multiple files, you just offset their line numbers > > by the size of the other files, > >More straightforwardly, the second table could just be a >bytecode -> file number mapping.
That would use more space in any case involving multiple files. >In the case of only one file, it would contain just a single >entry, so it probably wouldn't even be worth the bother of >special-casing that. A line->file mapping would also have only one entry in that case. >You could save a bit more by having two kinds of line number >table, "small" (16-bit entries) and "large" (32-bit entries) >depending on the size of the code object and range of line >numbers. The small one would be sufficient for almost all >code objects, so the most common case would use only about >4 bytes per line of code. That's only twice as much as the >current scheme uses. That'd probably work. _______________________________________________ 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
