Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:33:14 -0700 >> stefan brunthaler <s.brunthaler at uci.edu> wrote: >>> * The optimized dispatch routine has a changed instruction format >>> (word-sized instead of bytecodes) that allows for regular instruction >>> decoding (without the HAS_ARG-check) and inlinind of some objects in >>> the instruction format on 64bit architectures. >> Having a word-sized "bytecode" format would probably be acceptable in >> itself, so if you want to submit a patch for that, go ahead. > > Although any such patch should discuss how it compares with Cesare's > work on wpython. > > Personally, I *like* CPython fitting into the "simple-and-portable" > niche in the Python interpreter space. CPython has a a large number of micro-optimisations, scattered all of the code base. By removing these and adding large-scale optimisations, like Stephan's, the code base *might* actually get smaller overall (and thus simpler) *and* faster. Of course, CPython must remain portable. [snip] > > At a bare minimum, I don't think any significant changes should be > made under the "it will be faster" justification until the bulk of the > real-world benchmark suite used for speed.pypy.org is available for > Python 3. (Wasn't there a GSoC project about that?) +1 Cheers, Mark.
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