RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 30 19:38:06 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-August/113367.html

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:27:13 -0700
stefan brunthaler <stefan at brunthaler.net> wrote:
> >> Changing the bytecode width wouldn't make the interpreter more complex.
> >
> > No, but I think Stefan is proposing to add a *second* byte code format,
> > in addition to the one that remains there. That would certainly be an
> > increase in complexity.
> >
> Yes, indeed I have a more straightforward instruction format to allow
> for more efficient decoding. Just going from bytecode size to
> word-code size without changing the instruction format is going to
> require 8 (or word-size) times more memory on a 64bit system.

Do you really need it to match a machine word? Or is, say, a 16-bit
format sufficient.

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-August/113367.html below:

[Python-Dev] Python 3 optimizations continued...