On 19 July 2017 at 02:18, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:03:36 -0400 > Ben Hoyt <benh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The program is a pentomino puzzle solver, and it works via code generation, >> generating a ton of nested "if" statements, so I believe it's exercising >> the Python bytecode interpreter heavily. > > A first step would be to see if the generated bytecode has changed > substantially.
Scanning over them, the Python 2.7 bytecode appears to have many more JUMP_FORWARD and JUMP_ABSOLUTE opcodes than appear in the 3.6 version (I didn't dump them into a Counter instance to tally them properly though, since 2.7's dis module is missing the structured opcode iteration APIs). With the shift to wordcode, the overall size of the bytecode is also significantly *smaller*: >>> len(co.co_consts[0].co_code) # 2.7 14427 >>> len(co.co_consts[0].co_code) # 3.6 11850 However, I'm not aware of any Python profilers that currently offer opcode level profiling - the closest would probably be VMProf's JIT profiling, and that aspect of VMProf is currently PyPy specific (although could presumably be extended to CPython 3.6+ by way of the opcode evaluation hook). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
