Collin Winter <coll...@gmail.com> added the comment: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > > Hello, > >> I've backported condbranches-plus.patch to trunk, and I'm getting these >> results: > > Thanks! > >> PyBench: 1.84-2.21% faster >> 2to3: 3.83% faster >> Spitfire: 6.13-6.23% faster > > What is Spitfire?
http://code.google.com/p/spitfire/. It's a template system designed for performance that I have some experience with. >> I've haven't tested condbranches.patch vs condbranches-plus.patch; what >> difference are you seeing, Antoine? > > condbranches.patch is the earlier version (without POP_OR_JUMP and > JUMP_OR_POP), it can be ignored. I was mostly curious whether the POP_OR_JUMP and JUMP_OR_POP opcodes had a noticeable performance impact, ie, do they make things fast enough to warrant their inclusion over the old JUMP_IF_FALSE implementations. >> This patch mostly looks good, though you still need to change Doc/ >> library/dis.rst and the pure-Python compiler package. > > Well, the pure-Python compiler package doesn't exist in py3k, for which > I've initially made the patch. > (and its state in 2.x is very sorry...) I'll update the compiler package in 2.x and post my patch once I have it working. There are also some test failures in 2.x that I'll take care of. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4715> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
