Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablog...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> - Rewriting code objects in place is wrong, IMO: you always need to have a > way to deoptimize the entire thing, so you need to keep the original one. It > might be that you have well defined and static types for the first 10000 > invocations and something entirely different on 10001. So IMO we need a > SpecializedCode object with the necessary bailout guards. Imagine that we have a secondary copy of the bytecode in the cache inside the code object and we mutate that instead. The key difference with the current cache infrastructure is that we don't accumulate all the optimizations on the same opcode, which can be very verbose. Instead, we change the generic opcode to a more specialised to optimize and we change it back to deoptimize. The advantage is that BINARY_SUBSCRIPT for example won't be this gigantic block of text that will do different things depending if is specialising for dicts or lists or tuples, but we will have a different opcode for every of them, which I think is much easier to manage. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42115> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
