Message309169
| Author |
Mark.Shannon |
| Recipients |
Demur Rumed, Mark.Shannon, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, mark.dickinson, nascheme, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, trent |
| Date |
2017年12月29日.11:48:50 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1514548130.42.0.213398074469.issue17611@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Why all these competing pull requests? It does feel like my original patch has been hijacked.
Also, before any more PRs, we need to decide whether to use subroutines or code duplication for finally blocks.
Here is my attempt at an objective comparison of the two approaches.
JSR style Code duplication
Speed Slower Faster
Interpreter More complex Simpler
Bytecode generation Simpler More complex
Bytecode size ~ +0.1% ~ +0.4%
The increase in bytecode size is insignificant in terms of overall memory use, but the performance increase is significant (although small).
Unless I have missed anything important, this says to me that the code duplication approach is better. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年12月29日 11:48:50 | Mark.Shannon | set | recipients:
+ Mark.Shannon, nascheme, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, trent, serhiy.storchaka, Demur Rumed |
| 2017年12月29日 11:48:50 | Mark.Shannon | set | messageid: <1514548130.42.0.213398074469.issue17611@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年12月29日 11:48:50 | Mark.Shannon | link | issue17611 messages |
| 2017年12月29日 11:48:50 | Mark.Shannon | create |
|