Issue 26298: Split ceval.c into small files (original) (raw)
This issue has been migrated to GitHub: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/70486
classification
Title: | Split ceval.c into small files | |
---|---|---|
Type: | Stage: | |
Components: | Versions: | Python 3.6 |
process
Status: | closed | Resolution: | rejected |
---|---|---|---|
Dependencies: | Superseder: | ||
Assigned To: | Nosy List: | brett.cannon, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, yselivanov | |
Priority: | normal | Keywords: | patch |
Created on 2016-02-05 17:43 by vstinner, last changed 2022-04-11 14:58 by admin. This issue is now closed.
Files | |||
---|---|---|---|
File name | Uploaded | Description | Edit |
split_ceval.patch | vstinner,2016-02-05 17:43 | review |
Messages (5) | ||
---|---|---|
msg259682 - (view) | Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * ![]() |
Date: 2016-02-05 17:43 |
Attached patch splits the huge "switch (opcode)" of ceval.c into smaller ceval_xxx.h files. New files: 93 Python/ceval_stack.h 142 Python/ceval_condjump.h 155 Python/ceval_misc.h 162 Python/ceval_fast.h 180 Python/ceval_module.h 238 Python/ceval_ctx.h 249 Python/ceval_func.h 262 Python/ceval_iter.h 268 Python/ceval_build.h 384 Python/ceval_number.h Maybe we can put more files per .h file, maybe less. I don't really care. It will allow to keep the code readable even with new optimizations like the issue #21955. What do you think? | ||
msg259683 - (view) | Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * ![]() |
Date: 2016-02-05 17:56 |
I don't think this will make the code more readable. Rather less readable, since macros are defined in different file than used. | ||
msg259687 - (view) | Author: Brett Cannon (brett.cannon) * ![]() |
Date: 2016-02-05 19:37 |
I have a similar worry as Serhiy as I don't know where to find something like GET_AWAITABLE with that organization. | ||
msg259769 - (view) | Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * ![]() |
Date: 2016-02-07 08:52 |
I'm also -1 on the split for the reasons listed by Brett and Serhiy. | ||
msg259845 - (view) | Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * ![]() |
Date: 2016-02-08 13:58 |
Ok. At least I tried :-) With 3 strongs -1 votes, and no positive vote, I abandon my change. |
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2022-04-11 14:58:27 | admin | set | github: 70486 |
2016-02-08 13:58:04 | vstinner | set | status: open -> closedresolution: rejectedmessages: + |
2016-02-07 08:52:55 | rhettinger | set | nosy: + rhettingermessages: + |
2016-02-05 19:37:45 | brett.cannon | set | nosy: + brett.cannonmessages: + |
2016-02-05 17:56:58 | serhiy.storchaka | set | messages: + |
2016-02-05 17:43:14 | vstinner | create |