On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Note: I propose "noopt" because we already have "optimization level 0"
> which still uses optimizations, it's the default mode. It's different
> than gcc -O0 which really disables all optimizations. I already prefix
> the "noopt" suffix for
On 10/26/2015 10:36 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
2015-10-24 4:34 GMT+09:00 Terry Reedy :
How about -x nopeep to specifically skip the peephole optimizer?
Raymond wrote "IIRC, the code was never generated in the first place
(before the peephole pass)."
I based that suggestion on what others said
2015-10-24 4:34 GMT+09:00 Terry Reedy :
> How about -x nopeep to specifically skip the peephole optimizer?
Raymond wrote "IIRC, the code was never generated in the first place
(before the peephole pass)."
So "nopeep" would have a different purpose.
Victor
On 10/23/2015 4:23 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
2015-10-22 19:02 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
It's not specified anywhere; it's just what the peepholer decides to remove.
The exact code can be found at
https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/default/Python/peephole.c . There has
been talk in the past f
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> So my question is, the byte code generator removes the unused functions,
> variables etc…, is it right?
>
> Technically the peepholer removes the dead branch, but since the peepholer is
> run on all bytecode you can't avoid it.
IIRC, th
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> So my question is, the byte code generator removes the unused functions,
>> variables etc…, is it right?
>>
>> Technically the peepholer removes the dead branch, but since
Thank you for your confirmation,
I am going to read the devguide.
> On 25 oct. 2015, at 7:50 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Raymond Hettinger
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>>
>>> So my question is, the byte cod
Hi,
2015-10-22 19:02 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
> It's not specified anywhere; it's just what the peepholer decides to remove.
> The exact code can be found at
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/default/Python/peephole.c . There has
> been talk in the past for adding a -X flag to disable the peeph
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Indeed, whether 'pass' should be compiled to 'NOP' or nothing depends on
> one's view of the meaning of pass and whether it must be executed (by going
> though the ceval loop once and doing nothing) or not.
Hmm. I thought 'pass' was a syntacti
On 10/22/2015 1:56 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:02:48 -, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 at 09:37 Stéphane Wirtel wrote:
Hi all,
When we compile a python script
# test.py
if 0:
x = 1
python -mdis test.py
There is no byte code for the condition.
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:02:48 -, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 at 09:37 Stéphane Wirtel wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > When we compile a python script
> >
> > # test.py
> > if 0:
> > x = 1
> >
> > python -mdis test.py
> >
> > There is no byte code for the condition.
> >
> >
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 at 09:37 Stéphane Wirtel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When we compile a python script
>
> # test.py
> if 0:
> x = 1
>
> python -mdis test.py
>
> There is no byte code for the condition.
>
> So my question is, the byte code generator removes the unused functions,
> variables et
Thank you Brett,
I am going to read the source code, I am going to give a presentation at
PyCon.IE about this part and I wanted to be sure about the dead branches.
Thanks
On 22 Oct 2015, at 19:02, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 at 09:37 Stéphane Wirtel wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Whe
13 matches
Mail list logo
