Message307558
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Demur Rumed, Mark.Shannon, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, mark.dickinson, nascheme, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, trent |
| Date |
2017年12月04日.12:33:36 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<a0d6b8f8-505e-8900-a191-f9d11b19eaac@free.fr> |
| In-reply-to |
<1512390334.97.0.213398074469.issue17611@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
Le 04/12/2017 à 13:25, Serhiy Storchaka a écrit :
>
> I started on Antoine's PR and work on different approach (https://github.com/serhiy-storchaka/cpython/pull/1) which don't duplicate the code for continue/break/return. Instead it uses some kind of subroutines. END_FINALLY expects the one of three cases:
>
> 1. NULL (or None). Normal execution thread in try/finally. Continue from the instruction following END_FINALLY.
>
> 2. An integer. This is an address of returning. Continue from the specified address.
>
> 3. An exception (6 items). Raises the specified exception.
The problem is that makes the stack consumption of END_FINALLY variable.
How about always consuming 6 items, even when most of them are unused
padding? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年12月04日 12:33:36 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, nascheme, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, trent, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, Demur Rumed |
| 2017年12月04日 12:33:36 | pitrou | link | issue17611 messages |
| 2017年12月04日 12:33:36 | pitrou | create |
|