Hello all,

As discussed in some other threads ([1], [2]), we should discuss the METH_FASTCALL calling convention.

For passing only positional arguments, a C array of Python objects is used, which is as fast as it can get. When the Python interpreter calls a function, it builds that C array on the interpreter stack:

>>> from dis import dis
>>> def f(x, y): return g(x, y, 12)
>>> dis(f)
  1           0 LOAD_GLOBAL              0 (g)
              2 LOAD_FAST                0 (x)
              4 LOAD_FAST                1 (y)
              6 LOAD_CONST               1 (12)
              8 CALL_FUNCTION            3
             10 RETURN_VALUE

A C array can also easily and efficiently be handled by the C function receiving it. So I consider this uncontroversial.

The convention for METH_FASTCALL|METH_KEYWORDS is that keyword *names* are passed as a tuple and keyword *values* in the same C array with positional arguments. An example:

>>> from dis import dis
>>> def f(x, y, z): return f(x, foo=y, bar=z)
>>> dis(f)
  1           0 LOAD_GLOBAL              0 (f)
              2 LOAD_FAST                0 (x)
              4 LOAD_FAST                1 (y)
              6 LOAD_FAST                2 (z)
              8 LOAD_CONST               1 (('foo', 'bar'))
             10 CALL_FUNCTION_KW         3
             12 RETURN_VALUE

This is pretty clever: it exploits the fact that ('foo', 'bar') is a constant tuple stored in f.__code__.co_consts. Also, a tuple can be efficiently handled by the called code: it is essentially a thin wrapper around a C array of Python objects. So this works well.

The only case when this handling of keywords is suboptimal is when using **kwargs. In that case, a dict must be converted to a tuple. It looks hard to me to support efficiently both the case of fixed keyword arguments (f(foo=x)) and a keyword dict (f(**kwargs)). Since the former is more common than the latter, the current choice is optimal.

In other words: I see nothing to improve in the calling convention of METH_FASTCALL. I suggest to keep it and make it public as-is.


Jeroen.


[1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-June/153945.html
[2] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-July/154251.html
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to