Oren Tirosh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 05:26:01PM -0500, Neal Norwitz wrote:
I tried this patch (*) by running the regression tests:
make && time ./python -E -tt Lib/test/regrtest.py
All the expected tests passed and there were no failures, this is good. The bad news is that it was slower. It took 42 user seconds longer with the patch than without.
I tried this and the results were identical for both version (+-1 second) The regression tests most of their time on things like threads, sockets, signals and stuff like that which is barely affected by this patch and has a lot of other sources of variance. Some subset of the regression tests may be good as a benchmark, though.
I also got very strange results (some faster, some slower) with the python2.2 RPM package and didn't start to get consistent results until I used a freshly compiled interpreter for both the reference and DUT. I want to see how the package was compiled and why it got such strange results.
I was surprised by the results. I am using the latest version from CVS, plus I have some outstanding changes that would be unlikely to cause a conflict. They deal with removing consecutive line numbers (there is a patch on SF) and speeding up conditionals. Nothing that is remotely close to dictionaries.
Here are all the options from the compile:
gcc -c -DNDEBUG -g -O3 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -fkeep-inline-functions -fno-inline -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -I. -I./Include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
It's possible that no inlining is hurting, but I would still have expected your patch to be faster than without. I also wouldn't expect the test coverage to be hurting (-fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage), but that is possible. It would be nice if someone else could duplicate either of our results.