Vitja Makarov, 31.05.2011 13:07:
2011/5/24 Stefan Behnel:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 21:33:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
However, once we really know which values change between yield calls,
i.e.
which ones need to be stored away, it will actually be less expensive in
most cases. We currently pay
2011/5/31 Dag Sverre Seljebotn :
> On 05/31/2011 01:07 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>
>> 2011/5/24 Stefan Behnel:
>>>
>>> Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 21:33:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
>
> However, once we really know which values change between yield calls,
> i.e.
> which ones ne
On 05/31/2011 01:07 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2011/5/24 Stefan Behnel:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 21:33:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
However, once we really know which values change between yield calls,
i.e.
which ones need to be stored away, it will actually be less expensive in
most cases. We c
2011/5/24 Stefan Behnel :
> Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 21:33:
>>
>> 2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
>>>
>>> However, once we really know which values change between yield calls,
>>> i.e.
>>> which ones need to be stored away, it will actually be less expensive in
>>> most cases. We currently pay the indire
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 21:33:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
However, once we really know which values change between yield calls, i.e.
which ones need to be stored away, it will actually be less expensive in
most cases. We currently pay the indirection penalty for each access, even
read access, w
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel :
>
> However, once we really know which values change between yield calls, i.e.
> which ones need to be stored away, it will actually be less expensive in
> most cases. We currently pay the indirection penalty for each access, even
> read access, whereas the C compiler can
2011/5/23 Robert Bradshaw :
>>
>> Then again, "del x" would be a more obvious way to spell this ...
>
> And then setting it to NULL would actually be correct.
>
That is already done ;) But usually you wouldn't use del statement in your code.
> In any case, I'm -1 to deleting references once their
Robert Bradshaw, 23.05.2011 20:09:
In any case, I'm -1 to deleting references once their no longer used,
we must wait 'till the end of the function, and I'm not sure the
savings would be that great either.
Agreed.
In terms of packing/unpacking the variables onto the local C stack,
until we h
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 23.05.2011 11:29:
>>
>> Stefan Behnel, 23.05.2011 11:15:
>>>
>>> Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:50:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
>
> I'm fine with deallocating variables that are no longer used after the
> user
Stefan Behnel, 23.05.2011 11:29:
Stefan Behnel, 23.05.2011 11:15:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:50:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
I'm fine with deallocating variables that are no longer used after the
user
explicitly assigned None to them (i.e. replace the None assignment by a
simple "DECREF + set t
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 11:24:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:50:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:13:
With live variable analysis that should be easy to save/restore only
active variables at the yield point.
"Active" in the sense of "modifie
Stefan Behnel, 23.05.2011 11:15:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:50:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
I'm fine with deallocating variables that are no longer used after the user
explicitly assigned None to them (i.e. replace the None assignment by a
simple "DECREF + set to NULL" in that case). I don't thi
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel :
> Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:50:
>>
>> 2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
>>>
>>> Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:13:
With live variable analysis that should be easy to save/restore only
active variables at the yield point.
>>>
>>> "Active" in the sense of "modified",
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:50:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:13:
With live variable analysis that should be easy to save/restore only
active variables at the yield point.
"Active" in the sense of "modified", I suppose? That's what I was expecting.
Active means tha
On 05/23/2011 10:50 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel:
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:13:
With live variable analysis that should be easy to save/restore only
active variables at the yield point.
"Active" in the sense of "modified", I suppose? That's what I was expecting.
Act
2011/5/23 Stefan Behnel :
> Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:13:
>>
>> With live variable analysis that should be easy to save/restore only
>> active variables at the yield point.
>
> "Active" in the sense of "modified", I suppose? That's what I was expecting.
>
Active means that variable value will b
Vitja Makarov, 23.05.2011 10:13:
With live variable analysis that should be easy to save/restore only
active variables at the yield point.
"Active" in the sense of "modified", I suppose? That's what I was expecting.
Btw now only reaching definitions analysis is implemented. I'm going
to opti
2011/5/22 Stefan Behnel :
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking at the nqueens benchmark for a while, and I think it's
> actually not that a bad benchmark for generators.
>
> http://hg.python.org/benchmarks/file/tip/performance/bm_nqueens.py
>
> A better implementation only for Py2.7/Py3 is here:
>
> https:/
On 05/22/2011 02:33 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
I've been looking at the nqueens benchmark for a while, and I think it's
actually not that a bad benchmark for generators.
http://hg.python.org/benchmarks/file/tip/performance/bm_nqueens.py
A better implementation only for Py2.7/Py3 is here:
ht
Hi,
I've been looking at the nqueens benchmark for a while, and I think it's
actually not that a bad benchmark for generators.
http://hg.python.org/benchmarks/file/tip/performance/bm_nqueens.py
A better implementation only for Py2.7/Py3 is here:
https://github.com/cython/cython/blob/master/D
20 matches
Mail list logo