On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
>
> Hello Collin,
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
>> I don't see the changes to the lnotab format being a roadblock; just
>> mention it in NEWS. Likewise, the pure-Python compiler package shouldn't
>> be a high priority; your changes to that package look good enough.
>
> Well, I have good news: the fixes to the pure Python compiler have been
> accepted and committed by Neil Schemenauer in r69373.

Yeah, I saw that. Fantastic.

>> I'm seeing encouraging speed-ups out of this (with gcc 4.3.1 x86_64,
>> compiling Python as 64-bit):
>> Django templates (render a 150x150 table 100 times):
>> Min: 0.595 -> 0.589: 0.94% faster
>> Avg: 0.599 -> 0.591: 1.30% faster
>>
>> Spitfire templates (render a 1000x1000 table 100 times):
>> Min: 0.751 -> 0.729: 2.98% faster
>> Avg: 0.753 -> 0.730: 3.09% faster
>
> Not a tremendous speedup but not totally insignificant either.
> (I see you like Spitfire :-))

Well, Spitfire and Django represent very different ways of
implementing a template system, so I like to measure both when doing
application benchmarks. Template systems tend to be heavy CPU
consumers for webapps, which is why I include them.

>> None of the apps I've benchmarked are negatively impacted. I only have
>> two minor comments. Please commit this.
>
> Before committing I want to know what to do with the new jump opcodes,
> with respect to the alternative proposal I've made in #4715.
> Ideally, I should fold the #4715 patch back into the present patch,
> since I think the #4715 approach is more thought out.

That sounds good, especially since Jeffrey and I have already reviewed #4715.