RetroSearch Browse

Thu Aug 19 04:02:04 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048035.html

> > Move the bytecode optimizer upstream so that its results are saved
> > in pyc files and not re-optimized upon import.  Saves a bit of
> > startup time while still remaining decoupled from the rest of the
> > compiler.
> 
> Hm, shouldn't the bytecode optimizer only be used when -O is used, and
> hence pyo files are being written?

Why?  That would throw away most of the benefits to most of the users
and gain nothing in return.  The peepholer was in place in for Py2.3 and
only benefits were seen.  I would save the -O option for something where
there is a trade-off (loss of docstrings, excessive compilation time,
possibly risky optimizations, or somesuch).  Here, the peepholer is
superfast and costs almost nothing.

Raymond

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048035.html below:

[Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Python compile.c, 2.319, 2.320