STINNER Victor added the comment: inline-2.patch: more complete version of inline.patch.
Optimize the same instructions than Python 2: BINARY_ADD, INPLACE_ADD, BINARY_SUBSTRACT, INPLACE_SUBSTRACT. Quick & *dirty* microbenchmark: $ ./python -m timeit -s 'x=1' 'x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x' * Original: 287 ns * fastint5_2.patch: 261 ns (-9%) * inline-2.patch: 212 ns (-26%) $ ./python -m timeit -s 'x=1000; y=1' 'x-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y' * Original: 517 ns * fastint5_2.patch: 469 ns (-9%) * inline-2.patch: 442 ns (-15%) Ok. Now I'm lost. We have so many patches :-) Which one do you prefer? In term of speedup, I expect that Python 2 design (inline-2.patch) cannot be beaten in term of performance by another another option since it doesn't need any C code and does everything in ceval.c. ---------- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file41832/inline-2.patch _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21955> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
