Hardcode bytecode length in interpreter loop #56
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Instead, hardcode the bytecode length. This should avoid another check on each bytecode. Signed-off-by: Stefan Marr <[email protected]>
smarr
force-pushed
the
hardcode-bytecode-length
branch
from
972de6b to
706d15f
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Instead of using the bytecode length array, which is somewhat expensive in the interpreter, use the same approach that TruffleSOM uses and just adjust the bytecode index in each handler as appropriate.
This gives the bytecode interpreter a neat boost. It reduces the run time by 3-22%:
https://rebench.dev/RPySOM/compare/b7acae57068a02418f334fd84a209ac485ba7b98..45380176f78b122482359c54170da031f89a610e#exe-comparisons
This PR also fixes some new Black formatting, and updates to PyPy 7.3.15.