Guido van Rossum
Sun Dec 9 23:43:15 CET 2012Previous message:
[Python-Dev] Do more at compile time; less at runtime
Next message:
[Python-Dev] Do more at compile time; less at runtime
Messages sorted by:
———
Sounds good to me. No PEP needed, just a tracker item, tests, review etc... --Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone) On Dec 9, 2012 2:24 PM, "Mark Shannon" <
> wrote: > Hi all, >> The current CPython bytecode interpreter is rather more complex than it > needs to be. A number of bytecodes could be eliminated and a few more > simplified by moving the work involved in handling compound statements > (loops, try-blocks, etc) from the interpreter to the compiler. >> This simplest example of this is the while loop... > while cond: > body >> This currently compiled as >> start: > if not cond goto end > body > goto start > end: >> but it could be compiled as >> goto test: > start: > body > if cond goto start >> which eliminates one instruction per iteration. >> A more complex example is a return in a try-finally block. >> try: > part1 > if cond: > return X > part2 > finally: > part3 >> Currently, handling the return is complex and involves "pseudo > exceptions", but if part3 were duplicated by the compiler, then the RETURN > bytecode could just perform a simple return. > The code above would be compiled thus... >> PUSH_BLOCK try > part1 > if not X goto endif > push X > POP_BLOCK > part3 <<< duplicated > RETURN_VALUE > endif: > part2 > POP_BLOCK > part3 <<< duplicated >> The changes I am proposing are: >> Allow negative line deltas in the lnotab array (bytecode deltas would > remain non-negative) > Remove the SETUP_LOOP, BREAK and CONTINUE bytecodes > Simplify the RETURN bytecode > Eliminate "pseudo exceptions" from the interpreter > Simplify (or perhaps eliminate) SETUP_TRY, END_FINALLY, END_WITH. > Reverse the sense of the FOR_ITER bytecode (ie. jump on not-exhausted) >>> The net effect of these changes would be: > Reduced code size and reduced code complexity. > A small (1-5%)? increase in speed, due the simplification of the > bytecodes and a very small change in the number of bytecodes executed. > A small change in the static size of the bytecodes (-2% to +2%)? >> Although this is a quite intrusive change, I think it is worthwhile as it > simplifies ceval.c considerably. > The interpreter has become rather convoluted and any simplification has to > be a good thing. >> I've already implemented negative line deltas and the transformed while > loop:
> > I'm currently working on the block unwinding. >> So, > Good idea? Bad idea? > Should I write a PEP or is the bug tracker sufficient? >> Cheers, > Mark. >>>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________ > Python-Dev mailing list >
>
> > Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/**mailman/options/python-dev/**
> guido%40python.org<
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20121209/7b689eef/attachment.html
>
———
Previous message:
[Python-Dev] Do more at compile time; less at runtime
Next message:
[Python-Dev] Do more at compile time; less at runtime
Messages sorted by:
———