Oh, I found a nice pice of CPython history in Modules/_pickle.c.
Extract of Python 3.3:
-
/* A temporary cleaner API for fast single argument function call.
XXX: Does caching the argument tuple provides any real performance benefits?
A quick benchmark, on a 2.0GHz Athlon64 3
2016-08-22 10:01 GMT+02:00 Victor Stinner :
> The next step is to support keyword parameters. In fact, it's already
> supported in all cases except of Python functions:
> https://bugs.python.org/issue27809
Serhiy Storchaka proposed to use a single C array for positional and
keyword arguments. Keyw
Hi,
I pushed the most basic implementation of _PyObject_FastCall(), it
doesn't support keyword parameters yet:
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a1a29d20f52d
https://bugs.python.org/issue27128
Then I patched a lot of call sites calling PyObject_Call(),
PyObject_CallObject(), PyEval_CallObject(),
On 2016-08-08 6:53 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
2016-08-09 0:40 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
tl;dr I found a way to make CPython 3.6 faster and I validated that
there is no performance regression.
But is there a performance improvement?
Sure.
On micro-benchmarks, you can see nice improvements:
2016-08-09 1:36 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
> I just wanted to say I'm excited about this and I'm glad someone is taking
> advantage of what Argument Clinic allows for and what I know Larry had
> initially hoped AC would make happen!
To make "Python" faster, not only a few specific functions, "all" C
I just wanted to say I'm excited about this and I'm glad someone is taking
advantage of what Argument Clinic allows for and what I know Larry had
initially hoped AC would make happen!
I should also point out that Serhiy has a patch for faster keyword argument
parsing thanks to AC: http://bugs.pyth
2016-08-09 0:40 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> Hm, I agree that those tuples are probably expensive. I recall that
> IronPython boasted faster Python calls by doing something closer to the
> platform (in their case I'm guessing C# or the CLR :-).
To be honest, I didn't expect *any* speedup just by
2016-08-09 0:40 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
>> tl;dr I found a way to make CPython 3.6 faster and I validated that
>> there is no performance regression.
>
> But is there a performance improvement?
Sure.
On micro-benchmarks, you can see nice improvements:
* getattr(1, "real") becomes 44% faste
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> tl;dr I found a way to make CPython 3.6 faster and I validated that
> there is no performance regression.
But is there a performance improvement?
> I'm requesting approval of core
> developers to start pushing changes.
>
> In 2014 during
Hi,
tl;dr I found a way to make CPython 3.6 faster and I validated that
there is no performance regression. I'm requesting approval of core
developers to start pushing changes.
In 2014 during a lunch at Pycon, Larry Hasting told me that he would
like to get rid of temporary tuples to call functio
10 matches
Mail list logo
