RetroSearch Browse

Sat Mar 12 11:07:22 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109122.html

FWIW, I'm -1 on backing out Antoine's patch.  In addition to fixing
the minor optimization regression, it makes the peepholer
significantly more consistent in what it can and can't fold.  One of
the first times that I delved into the peepholer code was to try to
understand why expressions like:  2 * 3 * 4 and 3**2 * 7 were constant
folded, when 2 * (3 * 4) and 7 * 3**2 were not;  with Antoine's patch,
they're all folded.  That both Antoine and Eugene are happy with the
code gives me confidence in its correctness.

I can also see the case for ripping out the peepholer entirely.  But
reverting Antoine's patch seems like a step backwards.

Mark

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109122.html below:

[Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)