Guido van Rossum <guido@beopen.com>: > > Which makes me think that, if we want to do something about cache effects, > > it is probably not a bad idea to just "reorder" the bytecodes in the big > > switch by decreasing frequency (we have some stats about this -- I believe > > Skip and MAL have discussed the opcodes' frequency and the charts lie > > somewhere in the archives). I remember Marc-Andre had done something in > > this direction and reported some perf improvements too. Since reordering > > the opcodes doesn't really hurt, if I'm about to do something with the > > main loop, it'll be only this. > > Go for it -- sounds good! Allow me to also suggest liberal use of "inline" for small helper functions called from within the main interpreter loop. The nonlocality produced by subroutine calls plays hell with small caches. Side observation: the fact that micro-optimizations are giving us measurable speedups tells us that the higher-level architecture and algoirithms are very well tuned. Take a bow, Guido! -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790
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