News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Performance of the Python 3.14 tail-call interpreter. Parent comment

Re:Performance of the Python 3.14 tail-call interpreter by ehsankia on Monday March 10, 2025 @12:58PM (#43322518)
I guess the bigger question for me is, how was a 10% drop in Python performance not detected when that faulty compiler feature was pushed? Do we not benchmark the compilers themselves? Do the existing benchmarks on the compiler or python side not use that specific compiler?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Performance of the Python 3.14 tail-call interpreter by twoodfin on Monday March 10, 2025 @08:03PM (#43327664)
The author makes this point, too, and I agree it’s the most surprising thing about the entire scenario.

LLVM introduced a major CPython performance regression, and nobody noticed for six months?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Performance of the Python 3.14 tail-call interpreter by ltfish on Tuesday March 11, 2025 @12:57AM (#43329269)
As far as I am aware, the official CPython binaries on Linux have always been built using GCC, so you will have to build your own CPython using both Clang 18 and 19 to notice the speed difference. I think this is partly why no one has noticed the speed difference yet.
[ Parent | on HN ]