Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork34.3k
gh-145866: Eliminate redundant refcounting from_CALL_INTRINSIC_2#146262
gh-145866: Eliminate redundant refcounting from_CALL_INTRINSIC_2#146262KevinH15291 wants to merge 1 commit intopython:mainfrom
_CALL_INTRINSIC_2#146262Conversation
python-cla-botbot commentedMar 21, 2026 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement. |
Most changes to Pythonrequire a NEWS entry. Add one using theblurb_it web app or theblurb command-line tool. If this change has little impact on Python users, wait for a maintainer to apply the |
KevinH15291 commentedMar 21, 2026
This is my first CPython PR and I'm not very experienced. This PR largely just copies the style of the other PRs in#145866 and#134584, mainly#145964. I'm not sure if self.assertLessEqual(count_ops(ex,"_POP_TOP"),4) in my test is completely correct, as well as my testfunc deftestfunc(n):x=0for_inrange(n):deftest_testfunc[T](n):passreturnx I'm also not 100% sure if regenerated the opcode metadata stuff correctly. Otherwise I believe the PR should be good. |
Fidget-Spinner left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Nice, this looks really good, thanks for doing this!
| uops = get_opnames(ex) | ||
| self.assertIn("_CALL_INTRINSIC_2", uops) | ||
| self.assertEqual(count_ops(ex, "_POP_TOP_NOP"), 2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
GreaterEqual might be better. Also did you count how manyPOP_TOP_NOPs this produces? You can print the trace logs by compiling with the tier 2 interpreter (--enable-experimental-jit=interpreter) and passing the env varPYTHON_LLTRACE=2.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Well honestly, I got lucky; I doubled the numbers used in the test for_CALL_INTRINSIC_1. Later I did verify this, by uh, modifying the end of the test function to printuops, and looking at the printed output, as I was not aware ofPYTHON_LLTRACE=2 yet.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
_POP_TOP#145866