Just a suggestion from working with an assembly language stepper from a while back with Intel x86...lost to an HD crash, but couldn't you disassemble the binary, run through the assembly, and look for specific instructions that you could refine into a simpler, smaller cycling time to improve upon with a stepper that counts cycles?
I've seen other assembly steppers after I started mine for electrical engineering of PCB's, but I don't know if they're counting cycles, and suggesting other actions in an editor typ/optimization mode that the compiler might miss. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Ronald Oussoren <ronaldousso...@mac.com>wrote: > > On 22 Jul, 2013, at 17:08, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 09:32 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> > wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:36:35 -0700 > >>>> Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Our current Mac OS X builds use GCC-4.2. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Python2.7, I ran a comparison of gcc-4.2.1 builds > >>>>> versus gcc-4.8.1 and found that the latter makes a much > >>>>> faster Python. PyBench2.0 shows the total running time > >>>>> dropping from 5653ms to 4571ms. The code is uniformly > >>>>> better in just about every category. > >>>> > >>>> You could try running the benchmarks suite to see what that gives: > >>>> http://hg.python.org/benchmarks/ > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> > >>>> Antoine. > >>> > >>> or pypy benchmark suite which is more comprehensive for python 2.7 > >>> (http://bitbucket.org/pypy/benchmarks) > >> > >> Besides, is there any reason not to use clang by default on OS X? > > > > How did this thread go from: > > "for OS X, GCC 4.8.1 gives you significantly faster machine code > > than the system GCC 4.2.1" > > to > > "let's just use clang" > > ? > > Because we use the system compiler for building the official binary > packages. > > I'm not looking forward to bootstrapping GCC multiple times[*] just to be > able > to build a slightly faster python. And more so because you have to be very > careful when using a alternative compiler when building the installer, it > is > very easy to end up with a build that others cannot use to build extension > because they don't have /Users/ronald/Tools/Compiler/gcc-4.8/bin/gcc. > > > > > (I should declare that I've been hacking on GCC for the last few months, > > so I have an interest in this) > > It would still be interesting to know which compiler would generate the > fastest code for CPython. Apple tends to claim that clang generates better > code than GCC, buit AFAIK they compare the latest clang with the latest > version of GCC that they used to ship, which is ancient by now. > > Ronald > > [*] multiple times due to fat binaries. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/dwightdhutto%40gmail.com > -- Best Regards, David Hutto *CEO:* *http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com*
_______________________________________________ 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