Created on 2004-01-13 16:35 by mwh, last changed 2010-02-22 22:11 by Jeremy.Hylton. This issue is now closed.
| Files | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| File name | Uploaded | Description | Edit | |
| function-optimization-reorg.diff | mwh, 2004-01-13 16:35 | mwh's patch #1 | ||
| Messages (9) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg45281 - (view) | Author: Michael Hudson (mwh)  |
Date: 2004-01-13 16:35 | |
This patch rejigs the optimizations for certain kinds of function call -- easy Python functions, METH_O functions and so on. It also extends the "easy Python function" optimization to handle default arguments. It adds a tp_pythoncall field to type objects, with the signature of the ceval.c local static function do_call (which is now exported and called PyEval_DoCall). This field is filled out in the function and method constructors appropriately. What do you think? Makes little performance difference (0.5% improvement in pystone on one machine), but I think I prefer this arrangement. It generalizes better, for one thing. The patch is a little untidy at present -- some code duplication and it utterly mangles the function call statistics code -- but these should be shallow. |
|||
| msg45282 - (view) | Author: Jeremy Hylton (jhylton) | Date: 2004-11-07 14:29 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=31392 Is this patch still relevant? Should it wait until 2.5? |
|||
| msg45283 - (view) | Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2004-11-08 12:19 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6656 Well, nothing has invalidated it. I think I still would like to see it go in, but don't have strong opinions either way. What do you think of it? :-) It should certainly wait for 2.5. |
|||
| msg45284 - (view) | Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2006-02-20 11:26 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=1188172 2.5 is nearing, so what to do? |
|||
| msg45285 - (view) | Author: Richard Jones (richard) * |
Date: 2006-05-23 14:57 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6405 This patch is far too out of date to apply to 2.5 |
|||
| msg82014 - (view) | Author: Daniel Diniz (ajaksu2) | Date: 2009-02-14 11:35 | |
Can the patch be updated? |
|||
| msg99834 - (view) | Author: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling) * |
Date: 2010-02-22 21:15 | |
Is this patch still of interest? |
|||
| msg99851 - (view) | Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2010-02-22 22:07 | |
I guess not. |
|||
| msg99853 - (view) | Author: Jeremy Hylton (Jeremy.Hylton) |
Date: 2010-02-22 22:11 | |
Might be worth looking at for 2.x anyway. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-02-22 22:11:04 | Jeremy.Hylton | set | nosy:
+ Jeremy.Hylton messages: + msg99853 |
| 2010-02-22 22:07:26 | mwh | set | status: open -> closed resolution: out of date messages: + msg99851 |
| 2010-02-22 21:15:13 | akuchling | set | nosy:
+ akuchling messages: + msg99834 |
| 2009-02-14 11:35:25 | ajaksu2 | set | nosy:
+ ajaksu2 type: performance messages: + msg82014 |
| 2004-01-13 16:35:24 | mwh | create | |