On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:48:37AM +0100, Christian Tismer wrote: > > Maybe it also makes sense to use indexing into a static > array, instead of the case construct. Note that there > can be one single such table for all opcodes and all cases, > since opcodes are still disjoint. It depends where this > table is stored and if this can get in the cache. > > While I don't know if this really makes the interpreter > more efficient, at least it makes it shorter to read > and maybe easier to maintain. Been there, done that: http://python.org/sf/693638 I already rejected the patch. :-) Making my own jump table, rather than using a switch was about 15% slower. Read the patch for more info. While I'm sure the patch could be improved, I don't think it would have made enough of a difference to make a change. Neal
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