ugh that looks really odd, why is p67 not removed escapes my attention
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
> This may be a bit of a long post, but I'm trying to provide as much
> information as possible. I'm attempting to work on a minimalistic Clojure
> friendly VM. The byt
Hey,
The arrays escape because the indexes into the arrays are not constants.
p67 = new_array(2, descr=)
+1446: setarrayitem_gc(p67, i30, p60, descr=)
Here, should i30 be always the same value? If yes, you should promote it
before the array access. I couldn't figure out what p67 is, whether it's
Hi Maciej,
On 25 February 2014 09:09, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> ugh that looks really odd, why is p67 not removed escapes my attention
Because we do setarrayitem and getarrayitem on non-constant indexes.
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Timothy Baldridge
> wrote:
>> I'm attaching a copy o
FYI it's fixed
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
>> Hello Ian,
>>
>> Le 20/02/14 20:40, Ian Ozsvald a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Armin. The point of the question was not to remove numpy but to
>>> understand the behaviour :-) I
Much obliged everyone. I've noted all these points in my post about my
high performance talk with updates linking back to these threads:
http://ianozsvald.com/2014/02/23/high-performance-python-at-pydatalondon-2014/
Re. Ronan - I'll use jitviewer, I just haven't had time. I hope to
cover it in the
So I spent two more hours on this this morning and finally got some good
results.
a) I turned on _immutable_ = True on the Code object. Should have done this
before.
Then I noticed that the trace contained the creation of the argument list,
but that that list was never made. The trace was also ma
correction on my last email "but that list was never used"
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
> So I spent two more hours on this this morning and finally got some good
> results.
>
> a) I turned on _immutable_ = True on the Code object. Should have done
> this before.
>
>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
> correction on my last email "but that list was never used"
we use the same hack in PyPy for fast argument passing, it helps in
non-jit case too. (we just use it up to 5 or so)
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Timothy Baldridge
>
Armin, is there really a semantical change?
Consider invocations valid in 2.7, (i.e. without timeout argument), is
it not the same then?
I'd rather see improvement to existing python programs :)
should this code be in nightly builds?
my original use case was much more convoluted than the minimal t
