Greg Ewing <greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
> "Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com>:
>
>> If the goal is to remove lines from the switch statement, just move the
>> code of lesser-used opcodes into a C function. There's no need to
>> eliminate the opcodes themselves.
>
> Naively, one might think that, if the code is rarely used, even if
> it's inside the switch, it'll rarely be in the cache and thus wouldn't
> make much difference.
I'm not sure that's so much the issue. It would be bad if (say) the
top of the switch and the LOAD_FAST opcode were in i-cache conflict,
and it's probably crap like this that accounts for the random-seeming
performance fluctuations as you tinker with eval_frame.
> But I suspect the cacheing issues are more subtle than just the total
> amount of code in the switch statement, and the only way to be sure
> is to measure.
on multiple architectures with multiple compilers, etc, etc.
Chees,
mwh
--
You can lead an idiot to knowledge but you cannot make him
think. You can, however, rectally insert the information,
printed on stone tablets, using a sharpened poker. -- Nicolai
-- http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.html
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