Bruno Dupuis <python.ml.bruno.dup...@lisael.org> wrote: >On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:40:51PM +0100, Bruno Dupuis wrote: > >> 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)
At the risk of being labeled a prude, please be careful about spelling (and pronouncing) the whole word "peephole". The word as you have spelled it here (twice) is a vulgarity. Now, I'm all in favor of the occasional vulgarity, but if this is a misunderstanding, you could find yourself as the butt of some awkward jokes at some future optimization conference... -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
