Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.004 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'algorithm': 0.04; 'syntax': 0.04; 'interpreter': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'binary': 0.07; 'differently': 0.07; 'computed': 0.09; 'method,': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'subject:Does': 0.09; 'used.': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; '2),': 0.16; 'excerpt': 0.16; 'itself,': 0.16; 'kern': 0.16; 'powers.': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'underlying': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'numerical': 0.19; '(in': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'accommodate': 0.24; 'interpret': 0.24; 'skip': 0.24; 'question': 0.24; 'equivalent': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'robert': 0.30; 'comments': 0.31; 'operators': 0.31; 'trivial': 0.31; 'this.': 0.32; 'proceed': 0.33; 'case,': 0.35; 'computing': 0.35; 'objects': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'doing': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'so,': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'implement': 0.38; 'whatever': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'does': 0.39; 'expensive': 0.39; 'itself': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'even': 0.60; 'algorithms': 0.60; 'free': 0.61; 'url:about': 0.61; 'john': 0.61; 'skip:* 10': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'choose': 0.64; 'our': 0.64; 'different': 0.65; 'taking': 0.65; 'worth': 0.66; 'world': 0.66; 'believe': 0.68; 'url:pdf': 0.68; 'power': 0.76; 'eco': 0.84; 'multiplying': 0.84; 'terrible': 0.84; 'received:86': 0.91; 'steps.': 0.91; 'choice.': 0.93 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Robert Kern Subject: Re: Does Python optimize low-power functions? Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 19:12:30 +0000 References: <5ea86e1b-f5b5-49d1-acfb-22ee4d9a1f16@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc2-cmbg17-2-0-cust347.5-4.cable.virginm.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 46 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1386357170 news.xs4all.nl 2940 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:34180 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:61178 On 2013-12-06 19:01, Neil Cerutti wrote: > On 2013-12-06, John Ladasky wrote: >> The following two functions return the same result: >> >> x**2 >> x*x >> >> But they may be computed in different ways. The first choice >> can accommodate non-integer powers and so it would logically >> proceed by taking a logarithm, multiplying by the power (in >> this case, 2), and then taking the anti-logarithm. But for a >> trivial value for the power like 2, this is clearly a wasteful >> choice. Just multiply x by itself, and skip the expensive log >> and anti-log steps. >> >> My question is, what do Python interpreters do with power >> operators where the power is a small constant, like 2? Do they >> know to take the shortcut? > > It uses a couple of fast algorithms for computing powers. Here's > the excerpt with the comments identifying the algorithms used. > From longobject.c: > > 2873 if (Py_SIZE(b) <= FIVEARY_CUTOFF) { > 2874 /* Left-to-right binary exponentiation (HAC Algorithm 14.79) */ > 2875 /* http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/about/chap14.pdf */ > ... > 2886 else { > 2887 /* Left-to-right 5-ary exponentiation (HAC Algorithm 14.82) */ It's worth noting that the *interpreter* per se is not doing this. The implementation of the `long` object does this in its implementation of the `__pow__` method, which the interpreter invokes. Other objects may implement this differently and use whatever optimizations they like. They may even (ab)use the syntax for things other than numerical exponentiation where `x**2` is not equivalent to `x*x`. Since objects are free to do so, the interpreter itself cannot choose to optimize that exponentiation down to multiplication. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco