On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:26:46AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > LOAD_FAST(124) : 19323126 ================================ > > SET_LINENO(127) : 15055591 ======================== > 1. That looks as close to a Poisson distribution as makes no difference. > I wonder what that means? It means there's still room for optimization! Other than that, probably not much. I also think that the similarity vanishes if you take into account that SET_LINENO does nothing, and LOAD_FAST is a basic operation and should be grouped with LOAD_NAME and LOAD_GLOBAL. > 2. Microtuning in the implementations of the top 3 opcodes looks indicated, > as they seem to constitute more than 50% of all calls. Actually, I believe there was talk of removing SET_LINENO altogether... or am I mistaken in that ? In any case, you can do it by using -OO. > 3. On the other hand, what do you get when you weight these by average > time per opcode? My guess is that *_NAME moves on up, as they already are pretty high up, and BINARY_* and UNARY_*, go *way* up: imagine all those classes that implement __add__ and __not__. Even if you have but a few of those calls, they effectively are (Python) function calls. In other words, those are pretty meaningless. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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