2 Nov
2017
2 Nov
'17
11:41 a.m.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:27:17 +0200 Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a limit to how cheap the call to PyErr_CheckSignals() can be. As I mentioned earlier, even just the fact that it's a C function call can be too much.
That's why, in the above, I used a new name PyErr_PROBE_SIGNALS() instead of optimizing the existing PyErr_CheckSignals() –– turning PyErr_CheckSignals() into a static inline function would change the ABI. I also didn't call it PyErr_CHECK_SIGNALS() because the functionality is not strictly equivalent to the existing function.
Please. If you want to replace PyErr_CheckSignals() with something faster, the first thing to do is to prove that PyErr_CheckSignals() *is* too expensive. Regards Antoine.