Get rid off implicit new/delete by std::vector when invoking a function #2013
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This reverts commit 8ef6d79.
* Add FAQ entry, with code example, for dealing with long functions interruption
|
@tarasko Are you still around and interested in getting this merged? |
Skylion007
requested changes
Feb 17, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi all, I've implemented the idea proposed in #2005
It does significantly improve performance of a single function call, there is no new/deletes anymore.
It comes with a cost of roughly 8% binary size increase
Additionally has_args, has_kwargs and nargs have become compile time arguments. Some checks from the former dispatcher code can now be completely ruled out by compiler
I had to remove vector<function_call> passed between first and second passes. I think that has significantly simplified the code, however I didn't measure whether it slows down function calls with many overloads.
The number below are very much approximate, I was running tests on a linux virtual machine
old
588 ns ± 113 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
------ pybind11_tests.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so file size: 3293632
new
411 ns ± 46.8 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
------ pybind11_tests.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so file size: 3559912
pure python
250 ns ± 9.25 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)