Alexander Belopolsky alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Sat Mar 12 03:53:36 CET 2011

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Raymond Hettinger
<raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Today, there was a significant check-in to the peephole optimizer that I
> think should be reverted:
>                http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/14205d0fee45/

+1

I was going to comment on the corresponding issue #11244 more or less
supporting Raymond's arguments.  There is no end of optimization ideas
that can be implemented in peephole optimizer.  I know this first hand
having implemented several of those that have been ultimately
rejected.  At the end of the day, peephole optimizer is a hack that
predates proper AST design.  There is no need to continue squeezing
out last drops of juice from 10-year old technology when much better
approach is available with the modern design.

---

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list