Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> This is true. I used this in my optimization from two
> years ago, and moved the oparg preparation into the
> opcode cases, not doing any test, but just fetching
> the argument.
>
>
> What happened to the optimization. It is not in the
> current code?
No. At that time, ceval speedups were not
popular, so I used the optimization just
to make Stackless appear faster than CPython,
although CPython would have been *even more*
faster.
>>I also turned this into macros which
>>added to the insn pointer only once.
>>Incredible but true: Most of the win I gathered was
>>by typecasting the oparg access differently into
>>a reference to a short int, instead of oring two
>>bytes.
>
>
> I skipped over that one because I thought that
> it would fail on a big-endian computer.
Sure it would fail. But on little endian like
X86, it produced much faster code, so I only
defined it for certain platforms.
ciao - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
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