Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #11952

Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1")

Path csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path <python-python-list@m.gmane.org>
X-Original-To python-list@python.org
Delivered-To python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status OK 0.000
X-Spam-Evidence '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'elif': 0.04; '3.2': 0.05; 'computed': 0.07; 'linear': 0.07; 'reason.': 0.07; 'python': 0.08; '(line': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229.12': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'received:lo.gmane.org': 0.09; 'subject:" ': 0.10; 'andreas': 0.16; 'chained': 0.16; 'subject:=': 0.16; 'linux': 0.17; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'compiled': 0.23; 'statement': 0.25; 'code.': 0.26; 'construct': 0.30; 'there': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; 'difference': 0.34; 'however,': 0.34; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.34; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.35; 'rather': 0.35; 'uses': 0.35; 'switch': 0.35; 'using': 0.37; 'think': 0.38; 'received:org': 0.38; 'should': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.39; 'header:Mime-Version:1': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'case': 0.39; 'subject: (': 0.39; "it's": 0.40; 'huge': 0.61; 'subject:+': 0.73; 'compiles': 0.84; 'schrieb': 0.84
X-Injected-Via-Gmane http://gmane.org/
To python-list@python.org
From Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de>
Subject Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1")
Date Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:24:17 +0200
References <4e513ceb$0$23863$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <1313947658.3424.3.camel@thegeorge>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host f049204197.adsl.alicedsl.de
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2.102ipre2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
In-Reply-To <1313947658.3424.3.camel@thegeorge>
X-Enigmail-Version 1.1.2
OpenPGP id=AD16AB1B; url=http://cheimes.de/heimes.asc
X-BeenThere python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version 2.1.12
Precedence list
List-Id General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe <http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list>
List-Post <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe <http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Message-ID <mailman.282.1313951079.27778.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines 13
NNTP-Posting-Host 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace 1313951079 news.xs4all.nl 23881 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:59901
X-Complaints-To abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:11952

Show key headers only | View raw

Am 21.08.2011 19:27, schrieb Andreas Löscher:
> As for using Integers, the first case (line 1319 and 1535) are true and
> there is no difference in Code. However, Python uses a huge switch-case
> construct to execute it's opcodes and INPLACE_ADD cames after
> BINARY_ADD, hence the difference in speed. 

I don't think that's the reason. Modern compiles turn a switch statement
into a jump or branch table rather than a linear search like chained
elif statements. Python 3.2 on Linux should also be compiled with
computed gotos.

Christian

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Andreas Löscher <andreas.loescher@s2005.tu-chemnitz.de> - 2011-08-21 19:27 +0200
  Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Laurent <laurent.payot@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 10:48 -0700
    Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Laurent <laurent.payot@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 11:03 -0700
  Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de> - 2011-08-21 20:24 +0200
    Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-08-21 14:52 -0400
      Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Andreas Löscher <andreas.loescher@s2005.tu-chemnitz.de> - 2011-08-22 01:17 +0200
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-22 00:37 +0100
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-08-21 19:38 -0400
          Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Andreas Löscher <andreas.loescher@s2005.tu-chemnitz.de> - 2011-08-22 02:00 +0200
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-22 05:33 +0000
  Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-08-21 15:39 -0400
    Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Laurent <laurent.payot@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 12:53 -0700
      Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Laurent <laurent.payot@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 12:55 -0700
      Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Laurent <laurent.payot@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 12:55 -0700
      Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-22 11:12 +1000
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") "Richard D. Moores" <rdmoores@gmail.com> - 2011-08-22 02:55 -0700
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2011-08-22 09:35 -0700
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2011-08-22 10:22 -0700
    Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Laurent <laurent.payot@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 13:04 -0700
    Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Laurent <laurent.payot@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 12:53 -0700
      Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Andreas Löscher <andreas.loescher@s2005.tu-chemnitz.de> - 2011-08-22 01:25 +0200
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-22 00:41 +0100
          Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-22 11:16 +1000
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de> - 2011-08-22 04:04 +0200
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-08-21 22:11 -0400
      Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Stephen Hansen <me+list/python@ixokai.io> - 2011-08-21 19:08 -0700
        Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-22 14:14 +1000
          Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Stephen Hansen <me+list/python@ixokai.io> - 2011-08-21 21:37 -0700
          Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") Stephen Hansen <me+list/python@ixokai.io> - 2011-08-21 21:49 -0700
  Re: relative speed of incremention syntaxes (or "i=i+1" VS "i+=1") casevh <casevh@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 21:14 -0700

csiph-web