Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
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.
We could also complicate the signature of
_PyOptimizer_BackEdgeto signal this case back to the caller so we could avoid the stack pointer write, and the caller could just continue regular interpretation instead of needing togoto resume_frameand update interpreter state from the frame again. But probably not worth it I guess, if optimizers declining to optimize should be rare?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.
Most calls to
_PyOptimizer_BackEdgewill return the same frame. We could add a check for it inJUMP_BACKWARD, but I think we would still need to save the stack pointer.Even if we could avoid it, I suspect a single unconditional write is faster than the additional logic to avoid it.