26 Apr
2002
26 Apr
'02
9:29 a.m.
I assume LOAD_NONE will eliminate the need for LOAD_CONST 0 (None). Instead of this:
[...]
It's probably a wee bit faster and it makes the bytecode smaller, because you don't need None in co_consts and you don't need an argument to the bytecode.
Based on my cycle counter measurements before the conference, I suspect the performance impact is, well, negligible.
Now I missed the point here.. :-)
You told a new opcode was needed to make it faster, but at the same time you said the performance impact is negligible.
Could you please clarify?
--
Gustavo Niemeyer
[ 2AAC 7928 0FBF 0299 5EB5 60E2 2253 B29A 6664 3A0C ]