On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:48:32AM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> damien morton wrote:
> >>From: M.-A. Lemburg [mailto:mal@lemburg.com]
> >>
> >>Back in the 1.5.2 days I played a lot with the ceval loop and
> >>the best results I got came from:
> >>
> >>b) splitting the switch statement in two: the first one for
> >> more commonly used opcodes, the second one for less often
> >> used opcodes
> >
> >
> >Are you suggesting something like:
> >
> >switch (opcode) {
> > case COMMON_OP:
> > case COMMON_OP:
> > ...
> > default:
> > handle_uncommon_ops();
> >}
>
> That's hard to do because the loop has so many variables
> to pass into handle_uncommon_ops(). I haven't tried
> it though (or at least I don't remember trying it :-),
> so perhaps this is even better.
The patch I mentioned before did that, but for all opcodes.
You could apply only part of the patch. That may yield better
results. But for all opcodes it was worse.
http://python.org/sf/693638
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