Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160808/ff25fd34/attachment.html below:
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Victor Stinner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:victor.stinner@gmail.com" target="_blank">victor.stinner@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
tl;dr I found a way to make CPython 3.6 faster and I validated that<br>
there is no performance regression.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>But is there a performance improvement?<br>Â <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm requesting approval of core<br>
developers to start pushing changes.<br>
<br>
In 2014 during a lunch at Pycon, Larry Hasting told me that he would<br>
like to get rid of temporary tuples to call functions in Python. In<br>
Python, positional arguments are passed as a tuple to C functions:<br>
"PyObject *args". Larry wrote Argument Clinic which gives more control<br>
on how C functions are called. But I guess that Larry didn't have time<br>
to finish his implementation, since he didn't publish a patch.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hm, I agree that those tuples are probably expensive. I recall that IronPython boasted faster Python calls by doing something closer to the platform (in their case I'm guessing C# or the CLR :-).<br><br></div><div>Is this perhaps something that could wait until the Core devs sprint in a few weeks? (I presume you're coming?!)<br></div></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">--Guido van Rossum (<a href="http://python.org/~guido" target="_blank">python.org/~guido</a>)</div>
</div></div>
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