[Python-Dev] Re: Re: Prospective Peephole Transformation

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 05:52 PM 2/18/05 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
> > Were these timings done with the code that turns (1,2,3) into a constant?
>
>I used a stock 2.4 from python.org, which seems to do this (for tuples,
>not for lists).
>
> > Also, I presume that these timings still include extra LOAD_FAST 
> operations that could be replaced
> > with DUP_TOP in the actual expansion, although I don't know how much 
> difference that would make in
> > practice, since saving the argument fetch might be offset by the need 
> to swap and pop at the end.
>
>here's the disassembly:

FYI, that's not a dissassembly of what timeit was actually timing; see 
'template' in timeit.py.  As a practical matter, the only difference would 
probably be the use of LOAD_FAST instead of LOAD_NAME, as timeit runs the 
code in a function body.  But whatever.

Still, it's rather interesting that tuple.__contains__ appears slower than 
a series of LOAD_CONST and "==" operations, considering that the tuple 
should be doing basically the same thing, only without bytecode 
fetch-and-decode overhead.  Maybe it's tuple.__contains__ that needs 
optimizing here?