On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:01 AM Armin Rigo <armin.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 13:12, Victor Stinner <vstin...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Please don't use &PyTuple_GET_ITEM() or _PyTuple_ITEMS(). It prevents > > to use a more efficient storage for tuple. Something like: > > > https://pythoncapi.readthedocs.io/optimization_ideas.html#specialized-list-for-small-integers > > > > PyPy already has the issue right now. > > Just to clarify PyPy's point of view (or at least mine): > > 1. No, it no longer has this issue. You can misuse > ``&PyTuple_GET_ITEM()`` freely with PyPy too. > > 2. This whole discussion is nice but is of little help to PyPy at this > point. The performance hit comes mostly from emulating reference > counting and non-movable objects. If the API was half the size and > did not contain anything with irregular behavior, it would have made > our job easier in the past, but now it's done---and it wouldn't have > improved the performance of the result. > While it's unfortunate we start this conversation back when PyPy started to suffer through this so that we could try to make it easier for them, I don't want people to think trying to come up with a simpler FFI API eventually wouldn't be beneficial to other implementations (either ones that haven't reach Python 3 yet or have not even been written).
_______________________________________________ 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
