-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
GH-125837: Split LOAD_CONST
into three.
#125972
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Tomas R. <[email protected]>
I think the range is -5 -> 256 (included) right? (at least _PyLong_SMALL_INTS works that way, but maybe 256 should be excluded even though it's stored in the _PyLong_SMALL_INTS). |
I want We can always add -5,-4,-3,-2 and -1 to |
Performance for tier 1 appears to be about 0.5% faster. Stats show the following fraction of constants loaded:
With a reduction in increfs of immortal objects of about 20%. |
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core_and_Builtins/2024-10-25-15-56-14.gh-issue-125837.KlCdgD.rst
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Python/flowgraph.c
Outdated
@@ -2173,7 +2155,8 @@ remove_unused_consts(basicblock *entryblock, PyObject *consts) | |||
|
|||
for (basicblock *b = entryblock; b != NULL; b = b->b_next) { | |||
for (int i = 0; i < b->b_iused; i++) { | |||
if (OPCODE_HAS_CONST(b->b_instr[i].i_opcode)) { | |||
int opcode = b->b_instr[i].i_opcode; | |||
if (OPCODE_HAS_CONST(opcode) && opcode != LOAD_SMALL_INT) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hasconst
is defined in the dis
docs as "Sequence of bytecodes that access a constant". I think it will make more sense if we clarify that it means "access a constant from co_consts
" and then remove LOAD_SMALL_INT
from hasconst
and OPCODE_HAS_CONST
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense. LOAD_COMMON_CONST
is not in hasconst
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe it's worth testing whether creating integers within the range(256)
will not affect co_consts
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't want to go overboard on testing internal details of the bytecode compiler.
LOAD_CONST
with a small int
is still correct, just a bit less efficient than LOAD_SMALL_INT
.
We already have plenty of tests in test_dis
that test this
…om code.co_consts
Splits
LOAD_CONST
into three instructionsLOAD_INT
for ints inrange(256)
. Avoids the need for a space in theco_consts
tuple and avoids an increfLOAD_CONST_IMMORTAL
for other immortal objects. Avoids an increfLOAD_CONST
for the remaining constantsRETURN_VALUE
andRETURN_CONST
#125837📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--125972.org.readthedocs.build/