osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Python-Dev] Comparing PEP 576 and PEP 580


I think both PEPs are relying on FASTCALL calling convention,
and can't be accepted until FASTCALL is stable & public.

There are enough time before Python 3.8 is released.
Let's go step by step.

Regards,

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer at ugent.be> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> in order to make reviewing PEP 576/580 easier and possibly take some
> ideas from one PEP to the other, let me state the one fundamental
> difference between these PEPs. There are many details in both PEPs that
> can still change, so I'm focusing on what I think is the big structural
> difference.
>
> To be clear: I'm referring to the PEP 576 version at
> https://github.com/markshannon/pep-576/blob/master/README.rst
> (this really should be merged in the main PEP repo).
>
> Both PEPs add a hook for fast calling of C functions. However, they do
> that on a different level. Let's trace what _PyObject_FastCallKeywords()
> currently does when acting on an instance of builtin_function_or_method:
>
> A. _PyObject_FastCallKeywords()
>       calls
> B. _PyCFunction_FastCallKeywords()
>       which calls
> C. _PyMethodDef_RawFastCallKeywords()
>       which calls
> D. the actual C function (*ml_meth)()
>
> PEP 576 hooks the call A->B while PEP 580 hooks the call B->D (getting
> rid of C).
>
> Advantages of the high-level hook (PEP 576):
> * Much simpler protocol than PEP 580.
> * More general since B can be anything.
> * Not being forced to deal with "self".
> * Slightly faster when you don't care about B.
>
> Advantages of the low-level hook (PEP 580):
> * No need to duplicate the code from B (see the various existing
> _{FOO}_FastCallKeywords functions).
> * Enables certain optimizations because other code can make assumptions
> about what B does.
>
> In my personal opinion, the last advantage of PEP 580 is really
> important: some existing optimizations depend on it and it also allows
> extending the protocol in a "performance-compatible" way: it's easy to
> extend the protocol in a way that callers can benefit from it.
>
> Anyway, it would be good to have some guidance on how to proceed here. I
> would really like something like PEP 580 to be accepted and I'm willing
> to put time and effort into achieving that.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jeroen.
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/songofacandy%40gmail.com
>


-- 
INADA Naoki  <songofacandy at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180704/1e4020fc/attachment.html>