On 8/25/05, Jack Diederich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:35:04PM -0400, Bill Mill wrote: > > On 8/25/05, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mark Dickinson wrote: > > > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > > > (1) Can anyone else reproduce this behaviour, or is it just some quirk > > > > of my setup? > > > > (2) Any possible explanations? Is there some optimization that kicks > > > > in at a certain number of lines, or at a certain length of > > > > bytecode? > > > > (3) If (2), is there some way to force the optimization, so that I can > > > > get the speed increase without having to add the extra lines? > > > > > > > I did find, though, that if I remove all print statements from the > > program, the dummy and non-dummy variable versions take indentical > > time. Can others reproduce this? > > > > I'm Investigating further... > > I'm getting similarly freakish results. I tried a little ghetto debugging > by putting a printf in dictobject.c's resize method and recompiling python. > Sadly I can't get the problem to reproduce itself with the new binary > (with or without the printf). The Ubuntu default 2.4.1 is sometimes fast, > my hand compiled one (./configure && make) is always slow. > > There are some very arcane low level things going on here. >
agreed. Also, either I was temporarily insane, or the version with the explicit template no longer runs faster for me, so I hope nobody spends a lot of time on that. Peace Bill Mill bill.mill at gmail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
