A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-January/012280.html below:

Python 2.1 slower than 2.0

[Python-Dev] Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0 [Python-Dev] Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0Jeremy Hylton jeremy@alum.mit.edu
Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:48:11 -0500 (EST)
>>>>> "MAL" == M -A Lemburg <mal@lemburg.com> writes:

  MAL> Yes... after a check of the Makefile I found that I had
  MAL> compiled Python 2.0 with -O3 and 2.1a1 with -O2 -- perhaps this
  MAL> makes a difference w/r to inlining of code. I'll recompile and
  MAL> rerun the benchmark.
 
When I was working in the CALL_FUNCTION revision, I compared 2.0 final
with my development working using -O3.  At that time, I saw no
significant performance difference between the two.  And I did notice
a difference between -O2 and -O3.

The strange thing is that I notice a difference between -O2 and -O3
with 2.1a1, but in the opposite direction.  On pystone, python -O2
runs consistently faster than -O3; the difference is .05 sec on my
machine.  

Jeremy



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