the eff-bot wrote:
> the first part is trivial; just add something like this to
> Objects/abstract.c:
>=20
> PyObject*
> PySequence_TupleOrList(PyObject* seq)
> ...
>=20
> the second parts is harder -- and that's of course where the
> real performance boost comes from. as far as I'm aware, very
> few C compilers can "specialize" loops for you...
in the same test setup, moving the PyList_Check inside the
loop gives a 25-30% slowdown (or to look at it from the other
side, 3 times instead of 4 times faster than naive code).
a compromise solution could be to combine the above function
with a macro:
#define PySequence_TupleOrList_GET_ITEM(seq, index)\
(PyList_Check(seq) ? PyList_GET_ITEM(seq, index) :\
PyTuple_GET_ITEM(seq, index)
(anyone got a better name? ;-)
standard usage:
seq =3D PySequence_TupleOrList(seq_in);
size =3D PyObject_Length(seq);
=20
for (i =3D 0; i < size; i++) {
PyObject* obj =3D PySequence_TupleOrList_GET_ITEM(seq, i);
...
}
comments?
</F>
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