I've backed this one out, too. 2013/6/22 Scott Dial <scott+python-...@scottdial.com>: > On 6/22/2013 2:17 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> Many people have raised concerns about this change, so I've now backed it >> out. > > I think that change also goes with this change: > > http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/f1dc30a1be72 > > changeset 84248:f1dc30a1be72 2.7 > Arrange structure to match the common access patterns. > > 1.1 --- a/Modules/_collectionsmodule.c > 1.2 +++ b/Modules/_collectionsmodule.c > 1.3 @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ > 1.4 > 1.5 typedef struct BLOCK { > 1.6 struct BLOCK *leftlink; > 1.7 + PyObject *data[BLOCKLEN]; > 1.8 struct BLOCK *rightlink; > 1.9 - PyObject *data[BLOCKLEN]; > 1.10 } block; > 1.11 > 1.12 #define MAXFREEBLOCKS 10 > > , which seems like a strange micro-optimization, at best. > > Based on that structure, it would seem that neither BLOCKLEN being 62 > (previous value) nor 64 (the new value) make much sense. It would seem > best that sizeof(block) == 64, so BLOCKLEN should be (64 - > 2*sizeof(PyObject *)). Nevertheless, I am skeptical that any tuning of > this structure provides any meaningful performance improvement. > > -- > Scott Dial > sc...@scottdial.com
-- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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