holger krekel <hpk@trillke.net> wrote:
[Oren Tirosh Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 01:26:57PM -0500]
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 07:34:44PM -0800, logistix wrote:
I compiled the contents of the Lib directory (but not subdirectories) with the builtin compile, the compiler module's compile, and a hacked compiler module that used my parser on a 866Mhz machine running WinXP.
The builtin compile took an average of 2.9 seconds.
The compiler module took an average of 105.3 seconds, or 36.3 times as long. The compiler module uses CPython's parser, but other than that it's in pure Python.
The hacked compiler module took an average of 177.2 seconds or 61.1 times as long. It has a pure Python module, but relies on tokeize which leaves re as the only C dependancy left.
To get a (very rough) estimate of the performance we can expect from a PyPython compiler it would be interesting to know how fast this code runs with psyco.
I agree that this would be interesting even though the PyPy-compiler might run on a quite different PSYCO. I can imagine modifying the compiler to implement the same restrictions that we might set on the PyPy-Interpreter. I can't wait to begin hacking on this.
logistix, is your parser/compiler code available anywhere?
holger
I just wrote the parser, the compiler code is already in the base distribution. There were a few bugs that turned up in Python2.2, so that's why I didn't run psyco benchmarks. Just using the standard compiler module in 2.2 with psyco didn't yield much of an improvement (108 seconds vs 115). Here's the code if you're interested. As I mentioned, you'll need at least 2.3a1. The instructions to tie it into the compiler modules are in the docstring: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~olsongt/python/pparser.py -logistix P.S. If anyone wants to patch this in and run Tools/Compiler/Regrtest.py against it, results would be appreciated.