[Python-Dev] Why is Bytecode the way it is? (original) (raw)

Paul Prescod paul at prescod.net
Thu Jul 8 07:27:04 CEST 2004

So I gave a tutorial last night on Python's implementation. I had a pretty clear idea of the parser, compiler, AST branch etc. But the bytecodes were fuzzy. For instance:

def foo(a): ... b = a + 5 ... return b ... dis.dis(foo) 2 0 LOAD_FAST 0 (a) 3 LOAD_CONST 1 (5) 6 BINARY_ADD 7 STORE_FAST 1 (b)

3 10 LOAD_FAST 1 (b) 13 RETURN_VALUE 14 LOAD_CONST 0 (None) 17 RETURN_VALUE

Why does the RETURN_VALUE opcode have to return something from the stack? Why not have a RETURN_VAR opcode that would directly return a variable or constant? (a leading bit could indicate whether to look in the const or var tuple).

Similarly, what if BINARY_ADD could work directly on constants and variables? I see the virtue of using the stack for objects that do not otherwise have a name. But if a value is in a contant or variable, why not refer to it by its position in co_consts or co_varnames.

And as long as we are talking about referring to things more directly, wouldn't it be possible to refer to constants by pointer rather than indirecting through the index? You'd have to fix up pointers when you first loaded the code but only once per function.

Paul Prescod

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list