It very much sounds like marketing hype to repeat this "direct to assembly" thing so much. Essentially it's claiming they are better at writing optimizers that are the more numerous authors of GCC, LLVM, etc. That's not inconceivable, but it's a hold claim requiring strong evidence.
Thanks, Antoine, for pointing me in right direction about PyPy. I knew they experimented with LLVM, but thought that avenue was more of a success. Indeed PyPy directly generates it's machine code, so maybe that approach is a good one. But PyPy also had a decade or more of effort behind it to get as good as it is (and it's open source)
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019, 4:08 AM Greg Ewing firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Mark @pysoniq wrote:
Translating a single language directly to assembly gives the best optimizations because most of the commonly used compilers, like GCC,
Clang, use an intermediate language intended for many languages, and
to a number of target architectures.
To take advantage of that, you need to find some optimisations that are made possible by the fact that you're compiling Python in particular to x86 in particular. That's something else that would be interesting to hear about.
-- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- email@example.com To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://email@example.com/message/FKYLBY... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/