Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: Hello Collin,
Thanks for taking a look. > I don't see the changes to the lnotab format being a roadblock; just > mention it in NEWS. Likewise, the pure-Python compiler package shouldn't > be a high priority; your changes to that package look good enough. Well, I have good news: the fixes to the pure Python compiler have been accepted and committed by Neil Schemenauer in r69373. > I'm seeing encouraging speed-ups out of this (with gcc 4.3.1 x86_64, > compiling Python as 64-bit): > Django templates (render a 150x150 table 100 times): > Min: 0.595 -> 0.589: 0.94% faster > Avg: 0.599 -> 0.591: 1.30% faster > > Spitfire templates (render a 1000x1000 table 100 times): > Min: 0.751 -> 0.729: 2.98% faster > Avg: 0.753 -> 0.730: 3.09% faster Not a tremendous speedup but not totally insignificant either. (I see you like Spitfire :-)) > None of the apps I've benchmarked are negatively impacted. I only have > two minor comments. Please commit this. Before committing I want to know what to do with the new jump opcodes, with respect to the alternative proposal I've made in #4715. Ideally, I should fold the #4715 patch back into the present patch, since I think the #4715 approach is more thought out. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2459> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
