News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A copy-and-patch JIT compiler for CPython. Parent comment

Re:A copy-and-patch JIT compiler for CPython by fatherzine on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @01:40PM (#38774572)
"14% faster than LLVM -O0" is fairly misleading too. How does the generated code compare with LLVM -O2/-O3? These are SQL queries, which are usually fairly short programs, where I would presume the cost of compiling is negligible compared to the cost of execution.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A copy-and-patch JIT compiler for CPython by mkesper on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @03:33PM (#38775755)
The generated code runs an order of magnitude faster than interpretation and 14% faster than LLVM -O0.

An order of magnitude faster than interpretation. That's the interesting part for Python, I'd think.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A copy-and-patch JIT compiler for CPython by stuaxo on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @07:55PM (#38788733)
I'd say it's a starting point, and also how else would you measure a baseline ?

You're right that O2/O3 should be compared too, though they will be more moved targets.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A copy-and-patch JIT compiler for CPython by fatherzine on Saturday December 30, 2023 @11:11PM (#38821710)
Measure time-to-results = compile-time + execution-time, for jit/O0/O2/O3. Fairly basic.
[ Parent | on HN ]