A RetroSearch Logo

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

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-July/045980.html below:

[Python-Dev] Why is Bytecode the way it is?

[Python-Dev] Why is Bytecode the way it is? [Python-Dev] Why is Bytecode the way it is?Paul Prescod paul at prescod.net
Thu Jul 8 16:14:42 CEST 2004
Raymond Hettinger wrote:

>...
> The eval loop is already pretty tight.

Compared to what? Total runtime of Python programs? Psycho? Java 
implementations?

I suppose the statement is based on the observation that compiling away 
the eval loop by using Pyrex or Python2C results in very little speed gain.

> As for tweaking opcodes, the biggest remaining wins are in LOAD_ATTR and
> CALL_FUNCTION.  They've been specialized enough that making further
> improvements is non-trivial.

I'm really not even proposing a change to Python as much as trying to 
understand why it is the way it is. I can see how a stack is helpful for 
evaluating deeply nested expressions (although temporary variables seems 
another good valid approach). I just don't see the payoff for shuffling 
variables from locals onto the stack and back into the locals table.

  Paul Prescod


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

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