Jeremy Hylton writes: > I don't understand what you mean, but I'll try to reply anyway :-). Often a good tactic. ;-) > I assume LOAD_NONE will eliminate the need for LOAD_CONST 0 (None). Yes. > It's probably a wee bit faster and it makes the bytecode smaller, > because you don't need None in co_consts and you don't need an > argument to the bytecode. Yes. > Based on my cycle counter measurements before the conference, I > suspect the performance impact is, well, negligible. Regarding changing LOAD_CONST 0 to LOAD_NONE, yes. What's more interesting are the changes of LOAD_GLOBAL 'None' to one of LOAD_CONST 0 or LOAD_NONE. That could be changed to use LOAD_CONST 0 *now*, without adding a new bytecode, and we could get a better idea of how much performance it actually buys us in practice, since we get rid of two dict lookups (globals & builtins). That doesn't address the deprecation cycle, but it would be nice to see what the change would buy us. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4