Re: [pypy-dev] Benchmarks
Hi, On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > A verbose answer - the function_threshold is about it, but also the > optimization level is much lower if we can't do loop invariant code > motion. One example is global lookups, where carl (or his student) is > working on eliminating guards even if we don't do LICM. This is what I > meant by "optimizing" a no-loop scenario. Advanced. :-) Armin ___ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
Re: [pypy-dev] Benchmarks
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Armin Rigo wrote: > Hi Maciek, > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: >> What's although worth considering is how to get stuff optimized even >> if we don't have loops (but I guess carl has already started) > > I'm unsure what you mean here. The function_threshold stuff you did > is exactly that, no? > A verbose answer - the function_threshold is about it, but also the optimization level is much lower if we can't do loop invariant code motion. One example is global lookups, where carl (or his student) is working on eliminating guards even if we don't do LICM. This is what I meant by "optimizing" a no-loop scenario. > > A bientôt, > > Armin. > ___ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
Re: [pypy-dev] Benchmarks
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Armin Rigo wrote: > Hi Maciek, > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: >> What's although worth considering is how to get stuff optimized even >> if we don't have loops (but I guess carl has already started) > > I'm unsure what you mean here. The function_threshold stuff you did > is exactly that, no? > Hey. No, I meant something else. Can you show up on IRC to discuss? :) > > A bientôt, > > Armin. > ___ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
Re: [pypy-dev] Benchmarks
Hi Maciek, On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > What's although worth considering is how to get stuff optimized even > if we don't have loops (but I guess carl has already started) I'm unsure what you mean here. The function_threshold stuff you did is exactly that, no? A bientôt, Armin. ___ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
Re: [pypy-dev] binascii.crc32() OverflowError?
Hi, On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Roger Flores wrote: > value = binascii.crc32(new_value, value) & 0x > value = binascii.crc32(new_value, value) & 0x Thanks for the report. This code doesn't run on top of CPython 2.5, too, but works indeed on top of CPython 2.7. We already had troubles deciding the type of the return value of crc32(), as it's not consistent on CPython. Now I see that we have troubles with the argument too :-) It seems that crc32() and a few similar functions actually accept integers of *any* size as argument, and just truncate it. I'll just fix it in PyPy to also accept integers of any size. A bientôt, Armin. ___ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
