gh-127937: convert decimal module to use import API for ints (PEP 757)

[skirpichev]

Benchmark	ref	patch
int(Decimal(1<<7))	648 ns	474 ns: 1.37x faster
int(Decimal(1<<38))	740 ns	501 ns: 1.48x faster
int(Decimal(1<<300))	2.06 us	2.02 us: 1.02x faster
int(Decimal(1<<3000))	115 us	115 us: 1.00x faster
Geometric mean	(ref)	1.20x faster

>>> sys.int_info[:2] (30, 4)

Details

# bench_Decimal-to-int.pyimportpyperffromdecimalimportDecimalvalues= ['1<<7', '1<<38', '1<<300', '1<<3000'] runner=pyperf.Runner() forvinvalues: d=Decimal(eval(v)) bn='int(Decimal('+v+'))'runner.bench_func(bn, int, d)

• Issue: Remove private _PyLong_FromDigits() function #127937

[picnixz]

hide _PyLong_FromDigits()? it's not used outside of the longobject.c anymore

Let's not hide this. Maybe someone is using it (it was removed then restored IIRC).

news

Not needed I think, unless you want to indicate the performance gain (it's always nice to know that something is faster). I did report the improvements of fnmatch.translate, so I think you can report those improvements as well.

[skirpichev]

BTW, this looks as a bug in the mpdecimal. C.f. the GNU GMP, the mpz_sizeinbase docs says: "If base is a power of 2, the result is always exact".

[skirpichev]

Let's not hide this. Maybe someone is using it (it was removed then restored IIRC).

I've updated the pr descriptions with my research. So far, I've found just one use case.

At least, I think we should deprecate (not soft) this. This apparently affects not so much projects and there is now a public alternative. @picnixz, what do you think?

[picnixz]

At least, I think we should deprecate (not soft) this

I would be fine with deprecating it, saying which alternative to use, so that we can simply remove it in some later versions. I think Victor was the one who removed and restored it so we should ask him as well.

[picnixz]

should dec_from_long() be modified here? (To use the PyLong_Export API.) I would prefer to do this in a separate PR.

If you prefer doing it in a follow-up PR because you fear it would be too hard to review, then it's better. If the change is minimal, we can do it this one (I didn't check the code to change)

[skirpichev]

If the change is minimal, we can do it this one

You can estimate them looking on the gmpy2 pr (referenced in the PEP): gmpy2/gmpy2#495 In principle, I don't think that this will complicate review to much. On another hand, changes looks logically independent. I would rather include here deprecation.

[picnixz]

• Let's change dec_from_long in another PR since the changes are independent (sorry it's 3 AM here and I don't have much energy).
• For deprecating _PyLong_FromDigits, maybe it's better to make a separate PR so that we have a dedicated NEWS entry and re-use the issue that actually removed the private API (and not the issue that reverted the removal). WDYT? (we would also be able to change PyLong_Copy accordingly)

[vstinner]

LGTM.

mpd_qexport_*() functions used here with assumption, that no resizing
occur, i.e. len was obtained by a call to mpd_sizeinbase.

IMO it's a reasonable trade-off and an acceptable risk.

[serhiy-storchaka]

It is not guaranteed, and there is no way to enforce that resize does not occur in mpd_qexport_*() functions.

How to estimate the risk? If Python has undefined behavior in one of billion cases, is it acceptable risk?

[skirpichev]

It is not guaranteed, and there is no way to enforce that resize does not occur in mpd_qexport_*() functions.

@serhiy-storchaka, we have a confirmation from the library author, that this expectation is correct, unless libm is broken. I guess it's not just one place where we depend on quality of system libraries.

Or do you believe that mpd_sizeinbase() can underestimate size with correct log10? If so, it's a bug. Lets just fix one. Here is the function (IIRC it's same in latest upstream version):

cpython/Modules/_decimal/libmpdec/mpdecimal.c

Lines 8084 to 8113 in 65ae3d5

	size_t
	mpd_sizeinbase(constmpd_t*a, uint32_tbase)
	{
	doublex;
	size_tdigits;
	doubleupper_bound;
	assert(mpd_isinteger(a));
	assert(base >= 2);
	if (mpd_iszero(a)){
	return1;
	}
	digits=a->digits+a->exp;
	#ifdefCONFIG_64
	/* ceil(2711437152599294 / log10(2)) + 4 == 2**53 */
	if (digits>2711437152599294ULL){
	returnSIZE_MAX;
	}
	upper_bound= (double)((1ULL<<53)-1);
	#else
	upper_bound= (double)(SIZE_MAX-1);
	#endif
	x= (double)digits / log10(base);
	return (x>upper_bound) ? SIZE_MAX : (size_t)x+1;
	}

Edit:
In fact, we need much simpler case, as base is a power of 2. So, we want ndigits * log2(10)/shift. This should be a correct bound:

(size_t)(3.321928094887363*((ndigits + shift - 1)/shift)) 

For shift=30 and ndigits ~ 1<<53 (upper_bound for typical case) - it will overestimate size in just 1 digit.

[vstinner]

@picnixz: Would you mind to review the latest PR version? It changed a lot since last month.

[picnixz]

A few final comments on English wording and some variables. Otherwise, LGTM. Sorry Victor, the ping got under my radar.

[vstinner]

@serhiy-storchaka: Are you ok with this change? Or are you worried about the mpd_sizeinbase() issue?

[skirpichev]

I would prefer not do this, but to make some progress we could introduce a temporary buffer. @vstinner?

[skirpichev]

Ok, with a buffer (latest change) I got something like this:

Benchmark	ref	patch
int(Decimal(1<<7))	637 ns	480 ns: 1.33x faster
int(Decimal(1<<38))	735 ns	514 ns: 1.43x faster
int(Decimal(1<<300))	2.06 us	2.12 us: 1.03x slower
Geometric mean	(ref)	1.16x faster

Benchmark hidden because not significant (1): int(Decimal(1<<3000))

I'm not sure if the third case is a real speed regression or just a noise. But I think it can be acceptable, as this clear Serhiy concerns, that blocked the pr before. Hence, I push this.

@vstinner
@picnixz

[serhiy-storchaka]

LGTM. Later we can optimize it more. For very large values the total time is dominated by non-linear conversion time, so additional allocation and copying does not matter.

[picnixz]

LGTM (I've reviewed the two new commits and it's fine).

[vstinner]

LGTM

[vstinner]

Merged, thanks @skirpichev for the tedious change!

[skirpichev]

Thanks for reviews. I'll open an issue to track possible improvement (no temporary buffer).