On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:47:03AM +1000, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) wrote: > This doesn't actually give us a very useful indication of potential > memory savings. What I think would be more useful is tracking the > maximum simultaneous count of each value i.e. what the maximum refcount > would have been if they were shared.
It isn't just memory savings we are playing for. Even if 0.0 is allocated and de-allocated 10,000 times in a row, there would be no memory savings by caching its value. However there would be a) less allocator overhead - allocation objects is relatively expensive b) better caching of the value c) less cache thrashing I think you'll find that even in the no memory saving case a few cycles spent on comparison with 0.0 (or maybe a few other values) will speed up programs. -- Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick _______________________________________________ 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
