RetroSearch Browse

Thu Aug 19 06:07:10 CEST 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048038.html

> > Hm, shouldn't the bytecode optimizer only be used when -O is used, and
> > hence pyo files are being written?
> 
> Why?  That would throw away most of the benefits to most of the
> users and gain nothing in return.  The peepholer was in place in for
> Py2.3 and only benefits were seen.  I would save the -O option for
> something where there is a trade-off (loss of docstrings, excessive
> compilation time, possibly risky optimizations, or somesuch).  Here,
> the peepholer is superfast and costs almost nothing.

Maybe I'm out of tune, but I thought that optimizations should be
turned off by default because most people don't need them and because
of the risk that the optimizer might break something.  Haven't there
been situations in Python where one optimization or another was found
to be unsafe after having been in use (in a release!) for a long time?
I'd rather be safe than sorry.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048038.html below:

[Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Python compile.c, 2.319, 2.320