Author vstinner
Recipients mark.dickinson, pitrou, scoder, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2014-09-26.08:54:19
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1411721659.94.0.115292962361.issue22501@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I proposed an optimization for "x << 0" (as part of a larger patch to optimize 2 ** x) but the issue was rejected:
http://bugs.python.org/issue21420#msg217802

Mark Dickson wrote (msg217863):
"There are many, many tiny optimisations we *could* be making in Objects/longobject.c; each of those potential optimisations adds to the cost of maintaining the code, detracts from readability, and potentially even slows down the common cases fractionally.  In general, I think we should only be applying this sort of optimization when there's a clear benefit to real-world code.  I don't think this one crosses that line."
History
Date User Action Args
2014-09-26 08:54:20vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, mark.dickinson, pitrou, scoder, serhiy.storchaka
2014-09-26 08:54:19vstinnersetmessageid: <1411721659.94.0.115292962361.issue22501@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-09-26 08:54:19vstinnerlinkissue22501 messages
2014-09-26 08:54:19vstinnercreate