Message263894
| Author |
serhiy.storchaka |
| Recipients |
brett.cannon, eric.snow, larry, ncoghlan, random832, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, xiang.zhang |
| Date |
2016年04月21日.08:00:22 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1461225622.57.0.507039436152.issue26811@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
References:
Issue23910 -- added original optimization (661cdbd617b8).
Issue24276 -- it was significant rewritten (5dbf3d932a59).
My suggestion in msg263886 to revert the optimization was related to the original code. Now, after reminding the background, I think it is worth to keep the optimization and try to fix the code.
Making the cached tuple to save None adds additional complexity and overhead (about 5%). Here is a patch that uses different trick. The size of saved tuple is set to 0. |
|