[Python-Dev] Improving the bytecode

[Raymond Hettinger]

> On Jun 4, 2016, at 1:08 AM, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Following the converting 8-bit bytecode to 16-bit bytecode (wordcode), there are other issues for improving the bytecode.
> 
> 1. http://bugs.python.org/issue27129
> Make the bytecode more 16-bit oriented.

I don' think this should be done.  Adding the /2 and *2 just complicates the code and messes with my ability to reason about jumps.  

With VM opcodes, there is always a tension between being close to implementation (what byte address are we jumping to) and being high level (what is the word offset).  In this case, I think we should stay with the former because they are primarily used in ceval.c and peephole.c which are close to the implementation.  At the higher level, there isn't any real benefit either (because dis.py already does a nice job of translating the jump targets).

Here is one example of the parts of the diff that cause concern that future maintenance will be made more difficult by the change:

-                j = blocks[j + i + 2] - blocks[i] - 2;
+                j = (blocks[j * 2 + i + 2] - blocks[i] - 2) / 2;

Reviewing the original line only gives me a mild headache while the second one really makes me want to avert my eyes ;-)

> 2. http://bugs.python.org/issue27140
> Add new opcode BUILD_CONST_KEY_MAP for building a dict with constant keys. This optimize the common case and especially helpful for two following issues (creating and calling functions).

This shows promise. 

The proposed name BUILD_CONST_KEY_MAP is much more clear than BUILD_MAP_EX.


> 3. http://bugs.python.org/issue27095
> Simplify MAKE_FUNCTION/MAKE_CLOSURE. Instead packing three numbers in oparg the new MAKE_FUNCTION takes built tuples and dicts from the stack. MAKE_FUNCTION and MAKE_CLOSURE are merged in the single opcode.
> 
> 4. http://bugs.python.org/issue27213
> Rework CALL_FUNCTION* opcodes. Replace four existing opcodes with three simpler and more efficient opcodes.

+1


> 5. http://bugs.python.org/issue27127
> Rework the for loop implementation.

I'm unclear what problem is being solved by requiring that GET_ITER always followed immediately by FOR_ITER.


> 6. http://bugs.python.org/issue17611
> Move unwinding of stack for "pseudo exceptions" from interpreter to compiler.

I have mixed feelings on this one, at once applauding efforts to simplify an eternally messy part of the eval loop and at the same time worried that it throws aways years of tweaks and improvements that came beforehand.  This is more of a major surgery than the other patches.



Raymond Hettinger