RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jun 19 01:03:19 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-June/080517.html

> Maciej Fijalkowski did an opcode analysis for PyPy,
> it also shows the relative frequency of opcodes following a
> specifc one:
> 
> http://codespeak.net/svn/user/fijal/opcodes.txt
> 
> Might it make sense to add more PREDICT()ions based
> on this, e.g. for BUILD_SLICE -> BINARY_SUBSCR?

This particular one might be okay.  What code generates it?
Are there other possible successors to BUILD_SLICE?
What code generates those?

There were lots of other opcode pairings that were previously
studied and rejected.  You're going over well traveled ground.

Also, opcode analysis is a somewhat hazardous undertaking.
Dynamic analysis takes into account which codes tend to
occur more often inside loops but it is *very* sensitive
to who wrote the app and their coding style.  These results
always have to be taken with a grain of salt. 

Raymond

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-June/080517.html below:

[Python-Dev] Opcode frequency