gh-106529: Split FOR_ITER_RANGE into uops#106638
Merged
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
gvanrossum changed the title 
11 tasks
gvanrossumforce-pushed the new-for-iter-uops branch from 0d33f29 to 002b033Comparegvanrossum changed the title 
(Plus a skipped cache entry.)
This was remarkably straightforward
gvanrossumforce-pushed the new-for-iter-uops branch from 3bb46a4 to 6b8fb78Compare
MemberAuthor
gvanrossum commented Jul 12, 2023
I will fix the conflict and merge this. |
(I wasn't updating trace_length in this case.)
MemberAuthor
gvanrossum commented Jul 12, 2023
New benchmark says it's no faster or slower (in Tier 1, that is). That's good news. |
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ignore the commit history, this is a pile of different experiments.
Benchmark says 1% slower. Now, that's for the version where the "is it exhausted?" check pushes a
NULLonto the stack if it is, and the next value if it isn't, which isn't the latest design. So I'm not sure whether I care. If Mark likes the latest version I'll re-run the benchmarks.(Benchmarking says nothing about the Tier 2 interpreter speed, since that's off except during a few tests.)