Message 384466 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	yselivanov
Recipients	BTaskaya, Guido.van.Rossum, Mark.Shannon, barry, corona10, gvanrossum, methane, nascheme, pablogsal, yselivanov
Date	2021-01-06.03:42:49
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<[email protected]>
In-reply-to

Content
> The gist seems to be to have extra opcodes that only work for certain situations (e.g. INT_BINARY_ADD). In a hot function we can rewrite opcodes with their specialized counterpart. The new opcode contains a guard that rewrites itself back if the guard fails (and then it stays unoptimized). This is also roughly what I suggested in https://bugs.python.org/msg379333. Except that I don't think it's necessary to add new opcodes.

> The gist seems to be to have extra opcodes that only work for certain situations (e.g. INT_BINARY_ADD). In a hot function we can rewrite opcodes with their specialized counterpart. The new opcode contains a guard that rewrites itself back if the guard fails (and then it stays unoptimized).

This is also roughly what I suggested in https://bugs.python.org/msg379333. Except that I don't think it's necessary to add new opcodes.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2021-01-06 03:42:49	yselivanov	set	recipients: + yselivanov, gvanrossum, barry, nascheme, methane, Mark.Shannon, Guido.van.Rossum, corona10, pablogsal, BTaskaya
2021-01-06 03:42:49	yselivanov	set	messageid: <[email protected]>
2021-01-06 03:42:49	yselivanov	link	issue42115 messages
2021-01-06 03:42:49	yselivanov	create