STINNER Victor added the comment: I reviewed wpy3.patch.
I concur with Raymond, it's really nice to have a regular structure for the bytecode. -- Serhiy proposed to *reduce* the size of bytecode by adding new specialized bytecode which include the argument. For example (LOAD_CONST, 0) => LOAD_CONST_0. I would like to hear his opinion on this change. https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2016-February/038276.html Data+code loaded by import is the top #1 memory consumer on basic scripts according to tracemalloc: https://docs.python.org/dev/library/tracemalloc.html#examples I don't know the ratio between data and code. But here we are only talking about the co_code fields of code objects. I guess that the file size of .pyc is a good estimation. I don't think that the memory footprint of bytecode (co_code fields of code objects) really matters on computers (and smartphones?) of 2016. *If* I have to choose between CPU performance and memory footprint, I choose the CPU! -- > This does _not_ include having f_lasti be -1 instead of -2 IMHO it's ok to break the C API, but I would prefer to keep the backward compatibility for the Python API (replace any negative number with -1 for the Python API). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue26647> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
