Martin v. Löwis wrote:
So, the two big issues aside, is there any interest in incorporating
these optimizations in Python 3?
The question really is whether this is an all-or-nothing deal. If you
could identify smaller parts that can be applied independently, interest
would be higher.
Also, I'd be curious whether your techniques help or hinder a potential
integration of a JIT generator.
A JIT compiler is not a silver bullet, translation to machine code is
just one of many optimisations performed by PyPy.
A compiler merely removes interpretative overhead, at the cost of
significantly increased code size, whereas Stephan's work attacks both
interpreter overhead and some of the inefficiencies due to dynamic typing.
If Unladen Swallow achieved anything it was to demonstrate that a JIT
alone does not work well.
My (experimental) HotPy VM has similar base-line speed to CPython, yet
is able to outperform Unladen Swallow using interpreter-only optimisations.
(It goes even faster with the compiler turned on :) )
Cheers,
Mark.
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
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/mark%40hotpy.org
_______________________________________________
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
