Author blaisorblade
Recipients ajaksu2, alexandre.vassalotti, bboissin, blaisorblade, christian.heimes, collinwinter, djc, facundobatista, gregory.p.smith, jyasskin, lemburg, pitrou, ralph.corderoy, rhettinger, skip.montanaro, theatrus
Date 2009-01-10.12:08:52
SpamBayes Score 0.221345
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
> Same for CPU-specific tuning: I don't think we want to ship Python
with compiler flags which depend on the particular CPU being used.

I wasn't suggesting this - but since different CPUs have different
optimization rules, something like "oh, 20% performance slowdown on
PowerPC" or "on P4" is important to know (and yeah, configure options
are a good solution).

Which is the barrier for platform-specific tricks, as long as the code
is still portable? I'd like to experiment with __builtin_expect and with
manual alignment (through 'asm volatile(".p2align 4")' on x86/x86_64
with GAS - PPC might need a different alignment probably).

All hidden through macros to make it disappear on unsupported platforms,
without any configure option for them (there shouldn't be the need for

> I doubt many people compile Python with icc, honestly.

Yep :-(. <rant>Why don't distributors do it?</rant> (First culprit might
be license/compatibility problems I guess, but the speedup would be
worth the time to fix the troubles IMHO).
Date User Action Args
2009-01-10 12:08:55blaisorbladesetrecipients: + blaisorblade, lemburg, skip.montanaro, collinwinter, rhettinger, facundobatista, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, christian.heimes, ajaksu2, alexandre.vassalotti, jyasskin, djc, ralph.corderoy, bboissin, theatrus
2009-01-10 12:08:55blaisorbladesetmessageid: <>
2009-01-10 12:08:54blaisorbladelinkissue4753 messages
2009-01-10 12:08:52blaisorbladecreate