Message123025
> The use of Py_LOCAL_INLINE is new to me since we usually use #define
> instead, but this has a cleaner look to it. I am unclear on whether
> all the our target compilers support an inline keyword. If you're
> sure it works everywhere, that's great.
I fixed ./configure to properly set up Py_LOCAL_INLINE in Issue5553. :-)
It will expand to "static inline" under both MSVC and gcc. On older compilers, it may expand to "static __inline__", "static __inline", or whatever else is needed to get the job done.
As a last resort, it will expand to simply "static", but I don't know of any 32-bit (or 64-bit) compilers where that would actually happen.
> Also note that this patch puts a lot of faith in branch prediction.
> If some target processor doesn't support it, or has limited ability
> to remember predictions, or mispredicts, then the code will be slower.
I think even a limited amount of memory dedicated to branch prediction should be sufficient. There are two cases:
1) Sorting a simple type, like an int: the comparison is lightweight, and the CPU should have plenty of memory to remember which branch to take in the sorting code.
2) Sorting a complex type (i.e., calling a __lt__ method written in Python): the processor might not be able to remember which branch to take, but the performance impact will be small (as a percentage) since most of the CPU is being consumed by the comparisons.
Thanks for taking the time to review this. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-12-01 23:42:12 | stutzbach | set | recipients:
+ stutzbach, tim.peters, collinwinter, rhettinger, terry.reedy, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, eric.smith |
2010-12-01 23:42:12 | stutzbach | set | messageid: <1291246932.8.0.416263865072.issue9915@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-12-01 23:42:11 | stutzbach | link | issue9915 messages |
2010-12-01 23:42:11 | stutzbach | create | |
|