> I assume LOAD_NONE will eliminate the need for LOAD_CONST 0 (None). > Instead of this: [...] > It's probably a wee bit faster and it makes the bytecode smaller, > because you don't need None in co_consts and you don't need an > argument to the bytecode. > > Based on my cycle counter measurements before the conference, I > suspect the performance impact is, well, negligible. Now I missed the point here.. :-) You told a new opcode was needed to make it faster, but at the same time you said the performance impact is negligible. Could you please clarify? -- Gustavo Niemeyer [ 2AAC 7928 0FBF 0299 5EB5 60E2 2253 B29A 6664 3A0C ]
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