On 2017-07-01 11:57 PM, rym...@gmail.com wrote:
This is literally PyPy. There's little reason for something like this
to end up in official CPython, at least for now.
It's literally not PyPy. PyPy's internal bytecode, for one, does have
typechecks. And PyPy emits machine code, which is not something I wanna
deal with because you shouldn't need to write a C compiler AND a whole
assembly backend just to port python to a new CPU architecture. A C
compiler should be enough.
--
Ryan (ライアン)
Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else
http://refi64.com
On Jul 1, 2017 at 5:53 PM, <Soni L. <mailto:fakedme...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On 2017-07-01 07:34 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Let's say that you have a function "def mysum (x; y): return x+y", do
> you always want to use your new IADD instruction here? What if I call
> mysum ("a", "b")?
>
> Victor
Let's say that you do. Given how short it is, it would just get inlined.
Your call of mysum ("a", "b") would indeed not use IADD, nor would it be
a call. It would potentially not invoke any operators, but instead get
replaced with "ab".
When you have a tracing JIT, you can do away with a lot of overhead. You
can inline functions, variables, do away with typechecks, and many other
things. This holds true even if that JIT never emits a single byte of
machine code.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org <mailto:Python-ideas@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct:http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
