On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:40:51PM +0100, Bruno Dupuis wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:15:59PM +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote: > > Maybe it's the difference between LOAD_CONST and LOAD_GLOBAL. We > > can wonder why g uses the latter. > > Good point! I didn't even noticed that. It's weird... Maybe the > difference comes from a peehole optim on f which is not possible on g as > g is to complex. >
Neil, you were right, thanks. I patched peehole.c to remove this optim, and now the figures are the same. I investigate to find out why the latter function is not optimized the same way (and if it can be, I'll propose a patch for that) -- Bruno Dupuis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
