On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 8:25 PM Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 16:03 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: >> I wonder if a better solution than that PR wouldn't be to somehow change the >> implementation of _Py_IDENTIFIER() to do that, > > Yeah, I had the same realization today. I'm going to try it out.
I updated _Py_IDENTIFIER() to use a statically initialized string object and it isn't too bad. The tricky thing is that PyASCIIObject expects to the data to be an array after the object. So the field must be a pre-sized array (like I did in gh-30928). That makes things messier. The alternative is to do what Steve is suggesting. I ran the benchmarks and making _Py_IDENTIFIER() a statically initialized object makes things 2% slower (instead of 1% faster). There are a few things I could do to speed that up a little, but at best we'd get back to performance-neutral. -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DDWOJLFOTXTZ35LMBCPH2DHFMCSVLHH5/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
