Message309432
| Author | rhettinger |
|---|---|
| Recipients | benjamin.peterson, brett.cannon, methane, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov |
| Date | 2018-01-03.21:03:18 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1515013398.34.0.467229070634.issue32477@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> This is a step to getting rid of the peepholer. There is no goal to get rid of the peepholer optimizer. Please don't invent this as a requirement. If some optimization are more easily performed upstream, then go ahead and move them upstream. The goal is to have a net reduction in complexity, not just the elimination of peephole.c just because you decided it should disappear. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-01-03 21:03:18 | rhettinger | set | recipients: + rhettinger, brett.cannon, ncoghlan, pitrou, benjamin.peterson, methane, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov |
| 2018-01-03 21:03:18 | rhettinger | set | messageid: <1515013398.34.0.467229070634.issue32477@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-01-03 21:03:18 | rhettinger | link | issue32477 messages |
| 2018-01-03 21:03:18 | rhettinger | create | |