On 2019-04-10 18:25, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Hello!
I've had time for a more thorough reading of PEP 590 and the reference
implementation. Thank you for the work!
And thank you for the review!
I'd now describe the fundamental
difference between PEP 580 and PEP 590 as:
- PEP 580 tries to optimize all existing calling conventions
- PEP 590 tries to optimize (and expose) the most general calling
convention (i.e. fastcall)
And PEP 580 has better performance overall, even for METH_FASTCALL. See
this thread:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-April/156954.html
Since these PEPs are all about performance, I consider this a very
relevant argument in favor of PEP 580.
PEP 580 also does a number of other things, as listed in PEP 579. But I
think PEP 590 does not block future PEPs for the other items.
On the other hand, PEP 580 has a much more mature implementation -- and
that's where it picked up real-world complexity.
About complexity, please read what I wrote in
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-March/156853.html
I claim that the complexity in the protocol of PEP 580 is a good thing,
as it removes complexity from other places, in particular from the users
of the protocol (better have a complex protocol that's simple to use,
rather than a simple protocol that's complex to use).
As a more concrete example of the simplicity that PEP 580 could bring,
CPython currently has 2 classes for bound methods implemented in C:
- "builtin_function_or_method" for normal C methods
- "method-descriptor" for slot wrappers like __eq__ or __add__
With PEP 590, these classes would need to stay separate to get maximal
performance. With PEP 580, just one class for bound methods would be
sufficient and there wouldn't be any performance loss. And this extends
to custom third-party function/method classes, for example as
implemented by Cython.
PEP 590's METH_VECTORCALL is designed to handle all existing use cases,
rather than mirroring the existing METH_* varieties.
But both PEPs require the callable's code to be modified, so requiring
it to switch calling conventions shouldn't be a problem.
Agreed.
Jeroen's analysis from
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-July/154238.html seems
to miss a step at the top:
a. CALL_FUNCTION* / CALL_METHOD opcode
calls
b. _PyObject_FastCallKeywords()
which calls
c. _PyCFunction_FastCallKeywords()
which calls
d. _PyMethodDef_RawFastCallKeywords()
which calls
e. the actual C function (*ml_meth)()
I think it's more useful to say that both PEPs bridge a->e (via
_Py_VectorCall or PyCCall_Call).
Not quite. For a builtin_function_or_method, we have with PEP 580:
a. call_function()
calls
d. PyCCall_FastCall
which calls
e. the actual C function
and with PEP 590 it's more like:
a. call_function()
calls
c. _PyCFunction_FastCallKeywords
which calls
d. _PyMethodDef_RawFastCallKeywords
which calls
e. the actual C function
Level c. above is the vectorcall wrapper, which is a level that PEP 580
doesn't have.
The way `const` is handled in the function signatures strikes me as too
fragile for public API.
That's a detail which shouldn't influence the acceptance of either PEP.
Why not have a per-type pointer, and for types that need it (like
PyTypeObject), make it dispatch to an instance-specific function?
That would be exactly https://bugs.python.org/issue29259
I'll let Mark comment on this.
Minor things:
- "Continued prohibition of callable classes as base classes" -- this
section reads as a final. Would you be OK wording this as something
other PEPs can tackle?
- "PyObject_VectorCall" -- this looks extraneous, and the reference
imlementation doesn't need it so far. Can it be removed, or justified?
- METH_VECTORCALL is *not* strictly "equivalent to the currently
undocumented METH_FASTCALL | METH_KEYWORD flags" (it has the
ARGUMENTS_OFFSET complication).
- I'd like to officially call this PEP "Vectorcall", see
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/984
Those are indeed details which shouldn't influence the acceptance of
either PEP. If you go with PEP 590, then we should discuss this further.
Mark, what are your plans for next steps with PEP 590? If a volunteer
wanted to help you push this forward, what would be the best thing to
work on?
Personally, I think what we need now is a decision between PEP 580 and
PEP 590 (there is still the possibility of rejecting both but I really
hope that this won't happen). There is a lot of work that still needs to
be done after either PEP is accepted, such as:
- finish and merge the reference implementation
- document everything
- use the protocol in more classes where it makes sense (for example,
staticmethod, wrapper_descriptor)
- use this in Cython
- handle more issues from PEP 579
I volunteer to put my time into this, regardless of which PEP is
accepted. Of course, I still think that PEP 580 is better, but I also
want this functionality even if PEP 590 is accepted.
Jeroen, is there something in PEPs 579/580 that PEP 590 blocks, or
should address?
Well, PEP 580 is an extensible protocol while PEP 590 is not. But,
PyTypeObject is extensible, so even with PEP 590 one can always extend
that (for example, PEP 590 uses a type flag Py_TPFLAGS_METHOD_DESCRIPTOR
where PEP 580 instead uses the structs for the C call protocol). But I
guess that extending PyTypeObject will be harder to justify (say, in a
future PEP) than extending the C call protocol.
Also, it's explicitly allowed for users of the PEP 580 protocol to
extend the PyCCallDef structure with custom fields. But I don't have a
concrete idea of whether that will be useful.
Kind regards,
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
