On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Eugene Toder elto...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
patches
do not address folding of -0.
Hmm, it seems that way. Could you post a comment on the tracker
I've posted a patch.
Eugene
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Eugene Toder elto...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:17:34 + (UTC)
Eugene Toder elto...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your
patches
do not address folding of -0.
Btw, there's an alternative approach to allow
Well, that was just a though. You're right that long runs of constants
can appear, and it's better to avoid pathological behaviour in such
cases.
Your second path looks good.
Eugene
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:17:34 +
Hello,
I've noticed since version 3.2 python doesn't fold -0:
Python 3.1.3 (r313:86834, Nov 28 2010, 10:01:07)
def foo(): return -0
dis(foo)
1 0 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
3 RETURN_VALUE
Python 3.2 (r32:88445, Feb 20 2011, 21:30:00)
def foo(): return -0
Hello,
I've noticed since version 3.2 python doesn't fold -0:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Regards
Antoine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Indeed, see http://bugs.python.org/issue11244
Yes, I've noticed that too. However, if I'm not missing something, your patches
do not address folding of -0.
Btw, there's an alternative approach to allow recursive constant folding.
Instead of keeping a stack of last constants, you can keep a
