Author lemburg
Recipients Yury.Selivanov, casevh, josh.r, lemburg, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, vstinner, yselivanov, zbyrne
Date 2016-02-05.15:26:13
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <56B4BF0D.2050301@egenix.com>
In-reply-to <1454685265.51.0.152529141921.issue21955@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On 05.02.2016 16:14, STINNER Victor wrote:
> 
> Please don't. I would like to have time to benchmark all these patches (there are now 9 patches attached to the issue :-)) and I would like to hear Serhiy's feedback on your latest patches.

Regardless of the performance, the fastint5.patch looks like the
least invasive approach to me. It also doesn't incur as much
maintenance overhead as the others do.

I'd only rename the macro MAYBE_DISPATCH_FAST_NUM_OP to
TRY_FAST_NUMOP_DISPATCH :-)

BTW: I do wonder why this approach is as fast as the others. Have
compilers grown smart enough to realize that the number slot
functions will not change and can thus be inlined ?
History
Date User Action Args
2016-02-05 15:26:13lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, casevh, skrah, Yury.Selivanov, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov, josh.r, zbyrne
2016-02-05 15:26:13lemburglinkissue21955 messages
2016-02-05 15:26:13lemburgcreate