22 May
2014
22 May
'14
3 a.m.
On 05/21/2014 03:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
I'm perfectly happy to remove the word "peephole" from the feature. If we expect the set of optimizations to grow in the future, then we can expect that more cases of code analysis will be misled by optimizations. All the more reason to establish a way now that will disable all optimizations.
I think the big part of the problem is that there are more than just peephole optimizations. For example, what about all the fast-path optimizations? Do we want to be able to turn those off? How about the heapq optimizations that Raymond put in a few months ago? As Nick suggested, I think it would be better to fix whichever part is broken and allowing dead code to stay in the bytecode. -- ~Ethan~