Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:33:14 -0700
stefan brunthaler <s.bruntha...@uci.edu> wrote:
* The optimized dispatch routine has a changed instruction format
(word-sized instead of bytecodes) that allows for regular instruction
decoding (without the HAS_ARG-check) and inlinind of some objects in
the instruction format on 64bit architectures.
Having a word-sized "bytecode" format would probably be acceptable in
itself, so if you want to submit a patch for that, go ahead.
Although any such patch should discuss how it compares with Cesare's
work on wpython.
Personally, I *like* CPython fitting into the "simple-and-portable"
niche in the Python interpreter space.
CPython has a a large number of micro-optimisations, scattered all of
the code base. By removing these and adding large-scale optimisations,
like Stephan's, the code base *might* actually get smaller overall (and
thus simpler) *and* faster.
Of course, CPython must remain portable.
[snip]
At a bare minimum, I don't think any significant changes should be
made under the "it will be faster" justification until the bulk of the
real-world benchmark suite used for speed.pypy.org is available for
Python 3. (Wasn't there a GSoC project about that?)
+1
Cheers,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
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
