[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Sure. -- resolution: -> out of date stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Cheryl Sabella added the comment: Should this be closed now that PR6641 has been merged? -- nosy: +cheryl.sabella ___ Python tracker ___

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Change by Gregory P. Smith : -- versions: +Python 3.9 -Python 3.8 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Change by Inada Naoki : -- nosy: +inada.naoki ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: Additional related PR: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/6641 tied to issue33387 which proposes replacing the existing with and try related bytecodes with two simpler ones: RERAISE and WITH_EXCEPT_FINISH. -- nosy: +gregory.p.smith

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Mark Shannon added the comment: It is fiddly to get the frame-setlineno code right for duplicated catch blocks, but it is far from impossible. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: There are problems with the f_lineno setter when duplicate a finally body. The duplication works for "with" only because the cleanup code for "with" doesn't correspond any line number. --

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Mark Shannon added the comment: I intend to reuse RERAISE to implement the exceptional case for a finally block. Something like: SETUP_FINALLY final body finalbody JUMP exit final: finalbody RERAISE exit: -- ___

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Thank you for your PR Mark. The main difference between PR 5883 and PR 5112 is that in PR 5883 the pair of old WITH_CLEANUP_FINISH and END_FINALLY are replaced with a single new WITH_CLEANUP_FINISH, and in PR 5112 it is

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Mark Shannon added the comment: We have two competing PRs for this issue. Again. For comparison, using the same micro-benchmark, PR 5112 has these timings: Master branch: Mean +- std dev: 252 ns +- 4 ns PR 5112: Mean +- std dev: 216 ns +- 4 ns --

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- pull_requests: +5873 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Updated PR seems fixes issue29988 for synchronous "with". -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: This will not solve issue29988 but will open a way for solving it at least for synchronous "with" (swap POP_BLOCK and the following LOAD_CONST and disable interrupting after POP_BLOCK). -- nosy: +ncoghlan

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +5658 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___

[issue32949] Simplify "with"-related opcodes

New submission from Serhiy Storchaka : There are some issues with "with"-related opcodes. All other opcodes has constant stack effect for particular control flow. For example FOR_ITER always has the stack effect 1 if not jump (pushes the next item) and -1 if jumps