On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > If CPython development moves to distributed hg, the notion of 'blessed' > branches (other than the PSF release branch) will, as I understand it, > become somewhat obsolete. If you make a branch publicly available, anyone > can grab it and merge it with their branch, just as they can with anyone > elses.
It's true that as Martin said, we can rebase our code to Py3K in a branch on python.org any time we like, the question is more "if we do the work, will the Python community accept it". > Given the slight benefits compared to the costs, I think this, in its > current state, should be optional, such as is psyco. How optional would you want it to be? I'll point out that there are two ways you can turn off the JIT right now: 1) As a configure time option, pass --without-llvm. Obviously, this is really only useful to people who are building their own binaries, or for embedded platforms. 2) As a command line option, you can pass -j never. If you have a short-lived script, you can just stick this in your #! line and forget about it. This has more overhead, since all of the JIT machinery is loaded into memory but never used. Right now we record feedback that will never be used, but we could easily make that conditional on the jit control flag. > Your results suggest that speeding up garden-variety Python code is harder > than it sometimes seems. I wonder how your results from fancy codework > compare, for instance, with simply making built-in names reserved, so that, > for instance, len = <whatever> is illegal, and all such names get > dereferenced at compile time. That's cheating. :) Reid _______________________________________________ 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
