Re: Performance Tracker project update

[Chuck Swiger <cswiger_(_at_)_mac_(_dot_)_com>]

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

_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"