> > Yes -- but also would cause about 30-40 copies of the same code (which > > could be a single macro call). This could easily be tested and timed > > though. > > Yes, and we won't be able to conclude anything. This is micro-optimization > which doesn't give meaningful results. Actually, when I played last time > with the main loop (it was for 1.5.2 I believe) duplicating the second > argfetch doesn't give any speedup. Mainly because the code for > the 2nd byte fetch is already in the processor's cache. Consequently, > testing and fetching the 2nd argbyte (or skipping it) is faster when > it's done before the big switch. If it's done per opcode, the cache may > be invalidated. Fair enough (for one particular CPU at least). > Micro-optimization doesn't worth the effort. As to the 2-byte arg limit, > I think I'd be happy if the compiler raises an exception if this limit > is exceeded. That would be a good first step indeed! --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
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