> During a code review, Neal Norwitz noticed that ceval.c > defines DUP_TOPX for x in (1,2,3,4,5) but that compile.c > never generates that op code with a parameter greater than > three. > > The question of the day is whether anyone knows of a > reason that we can't or shouldn't remove the code for > the 4 and 5 cases. Is there anything else (past or present) > that can generate this opcode? Not that I know of. Now's the time to find out, so let's drop these. > Taking it out is only a microscopic win, a few saved brain > cycles and a smaller byte size for the main eval loop > (making it slightly more likely to stay in cache). > > Also, we wanted to know if anyone still had a use for the > LLTRACE facility built into ceval.c. It's been there since > '92 and may possibly not longer be of value. Haven't used in 5 years I think, so if you want to lose it, be my guest. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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