Re: [Python-Dev] python optimization

2005-09-16 Thread Neal Becker
One possible way to improve the situation is, that if we really believe python cannot easily support such optimizations because the code is too dynamic, is to allow manual annotation of functions. For example, gcc has allowed such annotations using __attribute__ for quite a while. This would

Re: [Python-Dev] C coding experiment

2005-09-16 Thread Andrew Durdin
On 9/1/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The goal is to determine whether the setobject.c implementation would be improved by recoding the set_lookkey() function to optimize key insertion order using Brent's variation of Algorithm D (See Knuth vol. III, section 6.4, page 525).

Re: [Python-Dev] C coding experiment

2005-09-16 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Hi, Brent's variation depends on the next probe position for a key being derivable just from the key and its current position. The use of perturbation in set_lookkey() prevents that, as we cannot say, given a key at a certain position, where the next probe location for that key would have

Re: [Python-Dev] python optimization

2005-09-16 Thread Nick Coghlan
Neal Becker wrote: One possible way to improve the situation is, that if we really believe python cannot easily support such optimizations because the code is too dynamic, is to allow manual annotation of functions. For example, gcc has allowed such annotations using __attribute__ for quite a

Re: [Python-Dev] C coding experiment

2005-09-16 Thread Raymond Hettinger
-Original Message- From: Andrew Durdin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] C coding experiment On 9/1/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The goal is to

[Python-Dev] Python 2.5a1, ast-branch and PEP 342 and 343

2005-09-16 Thread Nick Coghlan
I think this is mainly a question for Guido - where do we stand with respect to the ast-branch for Python 2.5? If we're targetting a March release for 2.5a1, then we probably need to land implementations for PEP 342 and PEP 343 at least a couple of months before that, and the current patches

Re: [Python-Dev] Variant of removing GIL.

2005-09-16 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Sokolov Yura wrote: I think I know how to remove GIL Obviously I am an idiot. Not an idiot, just lazy :-) Please try to implement your ideas, and I predict that you will find: 1. it is a lot of work to implement 2. it requires changes to all C files, in particular to extension modules

Re: [Python-Dev] Variant of removing GIL.

2005-09-16 Thread skip
Martin However, this is really hard to do correctly - if it were Martin simple, it would have been done long ago. I don't believe difficulty is the only (or primary) barrier. I think *someone* would have tackled it since Greg Stein did back in 1.4(?) or his free-threading changes would