[Python-Dev] Bytecode idea

[Christian Tismer]

Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:48:37AM +0100, Christian Tismer wrote:
> 
>>Maybe it also makes sense to use indexing into a static
>>array, instead of the case construct. Note that there
>>can be one single such table for all opcodes and all cases,
>>since opcodes are still disjoint. It depends where this
>>table is stored and if this can get in the cache.
>>
>>While I don't know if this really makes the interpreter
>>more efficient, at least it makes it shorter to read
>>and maybe easier to maintain.
> 
> Been there, done that:  http://python.org/sf/693638
> 
> I already rejected the patch. :-) Making my own jump table, rather
> than using a switch was about 15% slower.

Oh, that was not what I meant. I also did this
two years ago and tossed it. Function calls
are too expensive.
What I mean was to fold opcodes by common patterns.
Unfortunately this is slower, too.

Anyway, I didn't want to get too deep into this.
Stopping wasting time now :-)

cheers - chris
-- 
Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware  :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a     :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin                 :     PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34  home +49 30 802 86 56  pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
      whom do you want to sponsor today?   http://www.stackless.com/