On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Le mercredi 16 décembre 2015, Franklin? Lee
> a écrit :
>>
>> I am confident that the time overhead and the savings will beat the
>> versioning dict. The versioning dict method has
2015-12-15 12:23 GMT+01:00 Franklin? Lee :
> I was thinking (as an alternative to versioning dicts) about a
> dictionary which would be able to return name/value pairs, which would
> also be internally used by the dictionary. This would be way less
> sensitive to
2015-12-15 22:10 GMT+01:00 Franklin? Lee :
> (Stealing your style of headers.)
I'm using reStructured Text, it's not really a new style :-)
> Overhead
>
>
> If inner functions are being created a lot, that's extra work. But I
> guess you should expect a
I realized yet another thing, which will reduce overhead: the original
array can store values directly, and you maintain the refs by
repeatedly updating them when moving refs around. RefCells will point
to a pointer to the value cell (which already exists in the table).
- `getitem` will be
More thoughts. (Stealing your style of headers.)
Just store a pointer to value
=
Instead of having the inner dict store k_v pairs.
In C, the values in our hash tables will be:
struct refcell{
PyObject *value; // NULL if deleted
};
It's not necessary
On Sat, Dec 04, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Versionned dictionary
> =
>
> In the previous milestone of FAT Python, the versionned dictionary was a
> new type inherited from the builtin dict type which added a __version__
> read-only
Le mercredi 16 décembre 2015, Franklin? Lee
a écrit :
>
> I am confident that the time overhead and the savings will beat the
> versioning dict. The versioning dict method has to save a reference to
> the variable value and a reference to the name, and regularly
On Dec 04 2015, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I implemented 3 new optimizations in FAT Python: loop unrolling, constant
> folding and copy builtin functions to constants. In the previous thread,
> Terry Reedy asked me if the test suite is complete enough to ensure that
On 12/4/2015 11:39 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 2015-12-04 19:22, Isaac Morland wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, MRAB wrote:
> Constant folding is when, say, "1 + 2" replaced by "2".
Isn't that called backspacing? ;-)
Oops! I meant "1 + 1", of course. Or "3". Either would work. :-)
Oh, you must surely
Hi,
I implemented 3 new optimizations in FAT Python: loop unrolling, constant
folding and copy builtin functions to constants. In the previous thread,
Terry Reedy asked me if the test suite is complete enough to ensure that
FAT Python doesn't break the Python semantic. I can now say that the
On 2015-12-04 19:22, Isaac Morland wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, MRAB wrote:
> Constant folding is when, say, "1 + 2" replaced by "2".
Isn't that called backspacing? ;-)
Oops! I meant "1 + 1", of course. Or "3". Either would work. :-)
___
Python-Dev
2015-12-04 20:16 GMT+01:00 MRAB :
> On 2015-12-04 12:49, Victor Stinner wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I don't think that's constant folding, but constant _propagation_.
>
> Constant folding is when, say, "1 + 2" replaced by "2".
Oh, you're right. I update the documentation. To
On 2015-12-04 12:49, Victor Stinner wrote:
[snip]
Constant folding
This optimization propagates constant values of variables. Example:
def func()
x = 1
y = x
return y
Constant folding:
def func()
x = 1
y = 1
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, MRAB wrote:
Constant folding is when, say, "1 + 2" replaced by "2".
Isn't that called backspacing? ;-)
Isaac Morland CSCF Web Guru
DC 2619, x36650 WWW Software Specialist
___
Python-Dev mailing list
14 matches
Mail list logo