[Python-Dev] Why is Bytecode the way it is? (original) (raw)
Chris King squirrel at wpi.edu
Sat Jul 10 06:55:50 CEST 2004
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Weekly Python Bug/Patch Summary
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Why is Bytecode the way it is?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
While recently goofing around with the bytecode, I thought of doing something like this:
case LOAD_CONST: x = GETITEM(consts, oparg); Py_INCREF(x);
if (*next_instr == RETURN_VAL) {retval = x;why = WHY_RETURN;goto fast_block_end;} PUSH(x); goto fast_next_opcode;
This would skip the stack and a trip through the loop without changing the parser or the bytecode, and with a minimal amount of added code or overhead. This could (of course) be applied to other opcodes, too.
Perhaps instead of littering the function with that block, a macro "PUSH_MAYBE_RET" could be added that would replace the final PUSH in the opcode's case block:
#define PUSH_MAYBE_RET { if (*next_instr == RETURN_VAL) {
retval = x;
why = WHY_RETURN;
goto fast_block_end; }
PUSH(x); }
Not sure how much this would help speed, if any.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Weekly Python Bug/Patch Summary
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Why is Bytecode the way it is?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]