Message81962
Hello Collin,
Thanks for taking a look.
> I don't see the changes to the lnotab format being a roadblock; just
> mention it in NEWS. Likewise, the pure-Python compiler package shouldn't
> be a high priority; your changes to that package look good enough.
Well, I have good news: the fixes to the pure Python compiler have been
accepted and committed by Neil Schemenauer in r69373.
> I'm seeing encouraging speed-ups out of this (with gcc 4.3.1 x86_64,
> compiling Python as 64-bit):
> Django templates (render a 150x150 table 100 times):
> Min: 0.595 -> 0.589: 0.94% faster
> Avg: 0.599 -> 0.591: 1.30% faster
>
> Spitfire templates (render a 1000x1000 table 100 times):
> Min: 0.751 -> 0.729: 2.98% faster
> Avg: 0.753 -> 0.730: 3.09% faster
Not a tremendous speedup but not totally insignificant either.
(I see you like Spitfire :-))
> None of the apps I've benchmarked are negatively impacted. I only have
> two minor comments. Please commit this.
Before committing I want to know what to do with the new jump opcodes,
with respect to the alternative proposal I've made in #4715.
Ideally, I should fold the #4715 patch back into the present patch,
since I think the #4715 approach is more thought out. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-02-13 18:37:26 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, nnorwitz, collinwinter, rhettinger, gregory.p.smith, jcea, tzot, jyasskin, lauromoura, phsilva |
2009-02-13 18:37:24 | pitrou | link | issue2459 messages |
2009-02-13 18:37:23 | pitrou | create | |
|