On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:27:17 +0200 Koos Zevenhoven <k7ho...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's a limit to how cheap the call to PyErr_CheckSignals() can be. As I > mentioned earlier, even just the fact that it's a C function call can be > too much. > > That's why, in the above, I used a new name PyErr_PROBE_SIGNALS() instead > of optimizing the existing PyErr_CheckSignals() –– turning > PyErr_CheckSignals() into a static inline function would change the ABI. I > also didn't call it PyErr_CHECK_SIGNALS() because the functionality is not > strictly equivalent to the existing function.
Please. If you want to replace PyErr_CheckSignals() with something faster, the first thing to do is to prove that PyErr_CheckSignals() *is* too expensive. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/