…hon#116578)*pythonGH-116554: Relax list.sort()'s notion of "descending" runRewrote `count_run()` so that sub-runs of equal elements no longer end a descending run. Both ascending and descending runs can have arbitrarily many sub-runs of arbitrarily many equal elements now. This is tricky, because we only use ``<`` comparisons, so checking for equality doesn't come "for free". Surprisingly, it turned out there's a very cheap (one comparison) way to determine whether an ascending run consisted of all-equal elements. That sealed the deal.In addition, after a descending run is reversed in-place, we now go on to see whether it can be extended by an ascending run that just happens to be adjacent. This succeeds in finding at least one additional element to append about half the time, and so appears to more than repay its cost (the savings come from getting to skip a binary search, when a short run is artificially forced to length MIINRUN later, for each new element `count_run()` can add to the initial run).While these have been in the back of my mind for years, a question on StackOverflow pushed it to action:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78108792/They were wondering why it took about 4x longer to sort a list like:[999_999, 999_999, ..., 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0]than "similar" lists. Of course that runs very much faster after this patch.Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>Co-authored-by: Pieter Eendebak <pieter.eendebak@gmail.com>

…hon#116578)*pythonGH-116554: Relax list.sort()'s notion of "descending" runRewrote `count_run()` so that sub-runs of equal elements no longer end a descending run. Both ascending and descending runs can have arbitrarily many sub-runs of arbitrarily many equal elements now. This is tricky, because we only use ``<`` comparisons, so checking for equality doesn't come "for free". Surprisingly, it turned out there's a very cheap (one comparison) way to determine whether an ascending run consisted of all-equal elements. That sealed the deal.In addition, after a descending run is reversed in-place, we now go on to see whether it can be extended by an ascending run that just happens to be adjacent. This succeeds in finding at least one additional element to append about half the time, and so appears to more than repay its cost (the savings come from getting to skip a binary search, when a short run is artificially forced to length MIINRUN later, for each new element `count_run()` can add to the initial run).While these have been in the back of my mind for years, a question on StackOverflow pushed it to action:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78108792/They were wondering why it took about 4x longer to sort a list like:[999_999, 999_999, ..., 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0]than "similar" lists. Of course that runs very much faster after this patch.Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>Co-authored-by: Pieter Eendebak <pieter.eendebak@gmail.com>

…hon#116578)*pythonGH-116554: Relax list.sort()'s notion of "descending" runRewrote `count_run()` so that sub-runs of equal elements no longer end a descending run. Both ascending and descending runs can have arbitrarily many sub-runs of arbitrarily many equal elements now. This is tricky, because we only use ``<`` comparisons, so checking for equality doesn't come "for free". Surprisingly, it turned out there's a very cheap (one comparison) way to determine whether an ascending run consisted of all-equal elements. That sealed the deal.In addition, after a descending run is reversed in-place, we now go on to see whether it can be extended by an ascending run that just happens to be adjacent. This succeeds in finding at least one additional element to append about half the time, and so appears to more than repay its cost (the savings come from getting to skip a binary search, when a short run is artificially forced to length MIINRUN later, for each new element `count_run()` can add to the initial run).While these have been in the back of my mind for years, a question on StackOverflow pushed it to action:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78108792/They were wondering why it took about 4x longer to sort a list like:[999_999, 999_999, ..., 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0]than "similar" lists. Of course that runs very much faster after this patch.Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>Co-authored-by: Pieter Eendebak <pieter.eendebak@gmail.com>