"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:[SNIP]
And whatever happened to CALL_METHOD?
It didn't work as an optimization, as far as I remember. I think the patch is on SF somewhere. Or is a branch in CVS? Oh, it's patch #709744.
Do we need a tp_callmethod that takes an argument array, length, and keywords, so that we can skip instancemethod allocation in the common case of calling a method directly?
Hmm, didn't think of that, and I don't think it's how the CALL_ATTR attempt worked. I presume it would need to take a method name too :)
CALL_ATTR basically replaced ``LOAD_ATTR; CALL_FUNCTION`` with a single opcode. Idea was that the function creation by the LOAD_ATTR was a wasted step so might as well just skip it and call the method directly.
Problem was the work required to support both classic and new-style classes. Now I have not looked at the code since it was written back at PyCon 2003 and I was a total newbie to the core's C code at that point and I think Thomas said it had been two years since he did any major core hacking. In other words it could possibly have been done better. =)
-Brett _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
