Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:31:45 -0800 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance Tracker project update Message-ID: <967A7CF9-D9FE-454F-92E1-68D21CBDFA5E@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <foieub$mj6$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <4796C717.9000507@cederstrand.dk> <20080123193400.N63024@fledge.watson.org> <4797A245.7080202@cederstrand.dk> <20080123202433.E63024@fledge.watson.org> <4797A802.8060509@FreeBSD.org> <47A0BFE7.4070708@cederstrand.dk> <20080130190000.GA18333@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <47AC15A5.5020009@cederstrand.dk> <20080208151756.GA35423@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <foibab$a2g$1@ger.gmane.org> <9D27D745-2465-4FB2-B7E0-3C5DD411E9B9@mac.com> <foieub$mj6$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: >> Historically, the Python optimizer wasn't capable of doing much, >> true, but the more recent versions of the optimizer can actually do >> some peephole optimizations like algorithmic simplification and >> constant folding: >> http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/other-lang.html#SECTION0001320000000000000000 > > A quick test with the built-in pystone mini-benchmark (taken out of > the standard library so the optimization can be varied) yields [*]: > > python without -O : 5802.36 > python with -O : 5781.39 That's ~ 0.4% difference, or low enough to be lost in the noise, agreed. I suspect that if the Python optimizer becomes smart enough to do dead- code elimination and code motion of invariants outside of loops that one would see a more significant difference. At the present, it's only smart enough to optimize pretty dumb cases that most humans would already deal with... -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?967A7CF9-D9FE-454F-92E1-68D21CBDFA5E>