Yeah, it was surprising to me too. I thought it'd be faster, but not that much. I did some quick cProfile tests, but that didn't show anything, and I think it's improvements to the bytecode interpreter and various bytecode instructions. (This particular test hammers the bytecode interpreter.) I'll post details in the next week or so. -Ben On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-07-14 13:37 GMT+02:00 Ben Hoyt <benhoyt at gmail.com>: > > Wow, amazing work. The Stinnerbot strikes again! > > Thanks. > > > A lot of great optimizations and bugfixes. Speaking of optimizations, I > just > > wrote some code which takes 12s on Python 2.7 and 5s on Python 3.5. so > we're > > doing something right! I might post about it shortly. > > Hum, I'm curious to see which kind of code becomes so much faster on > Python 3. > > Victor > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20170714/8b04194a/attachment.html>
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