RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jan 31 12:59:49 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-January/107790.html

> What version of CPython did you try that with? The latest py3k branch?

I had a quick look at 3.2, 2.5 and 2.7 and got the impression that  
the savings is  more if the interpreter loop is faster: the fewer  
instructions there are, the bigger a 3 instruction difference would  
make.

The NEXTARG macro is the same in all three versions:
#define NEXTARG()       (next_instr += 2, (next_instr[-1]<<8) +  
next_instr[-2])
and the compiler compiles this to two separate fetches.

I found out my compiler (gcc) will make better code if we used a short.
It produces a "movswl" instruction to do both fetches at the same  
time, if I force it to.
That saves two instructions already.

This would imply that on little-endian machines, this would already  
save a few percent changing just 1 line of code in ceval.c:
#define NEXTARG()       (next_instr += 2, *(short *)&next_instr[-2])

- Jurjen

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-January/107790.html below:

[Python-Dev] Followup: Byte code arguments from two to one byte: did anyone try this?