This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author serhiy.storchaka
Recipients brett.cannon, eric.snow, larry, ncoghlan, random832, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, xiang.zhang
Date 2016-04-21.08:00:22
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1461225622.57.0.507039436152.issue26811@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
References:

Issue23910 -- added original optimization (661cdbd617b8).
Issue24276 -- it was significant rewritten (5dbf3d932a59).

My suggestion in msg263886 to revert the optimization was related to the original code. Now, after reminding the background, I think it is worth to keep the optimization and try to fix the code.

Making the cached tuple to save None adds additional complexity and overhead (about 5%). Here is a patch that uses different trick. The size of saved tuple is set to 0.
History
Date User Action Args
2016-04-21 08:00:22serhiy.storchakasetrecipients: + serhiy.storchaka, brett.cannon, rhettinger, ncoghlan, vstinner, larry, eric.snow, random832, xiang.zhang
2016-04-21 08:00:22serhiy.storchakasetmessageid: <1461225622.57.0.507039436152.issue26811@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-04-21 08:00:22serhiy.storchakalinkissue26811 messages
2016-04-21 08:00:22serhiy.storchakacreate