gh-116477: Improve performance of range for the single argument case by eendebakpt · Pull Request #116478 · python/cpython

eendebakpt · 2024-03-07T22:25:01Z

Benchmark

range(1): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 44.4 ns +- 1.0 ns -> [pr_pgo] 34.7 ns +- 4.0 ns: 1.28x faster
iter(range(1)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 78.7 ns +- 1.8 ns -> [pr_pgo] 61.7 ns +- 3.8 ns: 1.28x faster
list(iter(range(1))): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 219 ns +- 2 ns -> [pr_pgo] 199 ns +- 2 ns: 1.10x faster
range(2, 1): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 51.8 ns +- 1.3 ns -> [pr_pgo] 50.1 ns +- 2.1 ns: 1.03x faster
iter(range(2, 1)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 84.1 ns +- 1.2 ns -> [pr_pgo] 86.2 ns +- 3.7 ns: 1.02x slower
range(10): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 44.0 ns +- 0.6 ns -> [pr_pgo] 34.5 ns +- 1.6 ns: 1.28x faster
iter(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 78.5 ns +- 2.0 ns -> [pr_pgo] 61.6 ns +- 3.4 ns: 1.27x faster
list(iter(range(10))): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 267 ns +- 2 ns -> [pr_pgo] 244 ns +- 5 ns: 1.09x faster
range(2, 10): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 52.3 ns +- 3.7 ns -> [pr_pgo] 57.5 ns +- 1.5 ns: 1.10x slower
iter(range(2, 10)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 82.5 ns +- 3.0 ns -> [pr_pgo] 100 ns +- 1 ns: 1.21x slower
list(iter(range(2, 10))): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 267 ns +- 4 ns -> [pr_pgo] 277 ns +- 2 ns: 1.04x slower
range(100): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 44.1 ns +- 1.0 ns -> [pr_pgo] 34.1 ns +- 1.9 ns: 1.30x faster
iter(range(100)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 78.5 ns +- 1.8 ns -> [pr_pgo] 60.6 ns +- 2.2 ns: 1.29x faster
list(iter(range(100))): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 707 ns +- 29 ns -> [pr_pgo] 681 ns +- 26 ns: 1.04x faster
range(2, 100): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 52.6 ns +- 2.3 ns -> [pr_pgo] 57.3 ns +- 1.2 ns: 1.09x slower
iter(range(2, 100)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 83.3 ns +- 2.6 ns -> [pr_pgo] 101 ns +- 2 ns: 1.21x slower
list(iter(range(2, 100))): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 705 ns +- 23 ns -> [pr_pgo] 718 ns +- 28 ns: 1.02x slower
range(400): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 58.4 ns +- 0.8 ns -> [pr_pgo] 36.1 ns +- 1.1 ns: 1.62x faster
iter(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 93.9 ns +- 1.6 ns -> [pr_pgo] 62.3 ns +- 1.6 ns: 1.51x faster
list(iter(range(400))): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 3.92 us +- 0.06 us -> [pr_pgo] 3.87 us +- 0.05 us: 1.01x faster
range(2, 400): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 66.1 ns +- 1.1 ns -> [pr_pgo] 71.2 ns +- 1.0 ns: 1.08x slower
iter(range(2, 400)): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 103 ns +- 6 ns -> [pr_pgo] 115 ns +- 1 ns: 1.11x slower
for loop: Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 295 ns +- 9 ns -> [pr_pgo] 267 ns +- 5 ns: 1.10x faster

Benchmark hidden because not significant (2): list(iter(range(2, 1))), list(iter(range(2, 400)))

Geometric mean: 1.08x faster

The fast paths eliminate several calls to PyLong_AsLongAndOverflow and the construction of a new Python integer with PyLong_FromLong.

The fast path for the range object is in compute_range_length. That implies a small performance penalty (two pointer comparisons) for the cases where start != 0 or step != 1. We could move the fast path to range_from_array (the case 1: part), but that leads to a bit more duplicated code.

Issue: Improve performance of range #116477

serhiy-storchaka

In general LGTM. But please remove redundant spaces.

Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core and Builtins/2024-03-07-22-38-07.gh-issue-116477.AqwRAV.rst

…e-116477.AqwRAV.rst Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>

Objects/rangeobject.c

serhiy-storchaka · 2024-03-08T14:25:47Z

Objects/rangeobject.c

-    lstop = PyLong_AsLong(r->stop);
-    if (lstop == -1 && PyErr_Occurred()) {
+
+    if (r->start == _PyLong_GetZero() && r->step == _PyLong_GetOne() ) {


How large is overhead of two PyLong_AsLong() calls for 0 and 1? Is it noticeable?

Run something like:

./python -m timeit -s 'r = range(10)' 'for i in r: break'

AFAIK it is the fastest code that is affected by the iterator creation time.

The overhead for the two PyLong_AsLong calls (plus some bits and pieces) are from the first benchmark above:

range(1): Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 44.4 ns +- 1.0 ns -> [pr_pgo] 34.7 ns +- 4.0 ns: 1.28x faster

So about 10 ns.

The last benchmark from the first comment:

for loop: Mean +- std dev: [main_pgo] 295 ns +- 9 ns -> [pr_pgo] 267 ns +- 5 ns: 1.10x faster

executes:

def g(): x=0 for ii in range(10): x += 1

So a small for loop with minimal work becomes 10% faster. (timings may vary, my system is noisy)

Objects/rangeobject.c

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>

Objects/rangeobject.c

Co-authored-by: Erlend E. Aasland <erlend.aasland@protonmail.com>

erlend-aasland

Looks good to me, but I'd like Serhiy's thumbs up before landing.

erlend-aasland

I'll merge this later at the sprints. Thanks!

serhiy-storchaka

I am not convinced that this change is worth to do, but I will not object against committing it if other core developer likes it.

Objects/rangeobject.c

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>

erlend-aasland · 2024-05-28T09:09:56Z

@eendebakpt, are the benchmarks up to date?

eendebakpt · 2024-05-28T21:19:58Z

Here is a set of benchmarks for the PR rebased to main:

range(1): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 49.9 ns +- 1.1 ns -> [pr_v2] 39.7 ns +- 1.1 ns: 1.26x faster
iter(range(1)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 82.1 ns +- 0.6 ns -> [pr_v2] 68.4 ns +- 1.7 ns: 1.20x faster
list(range(1)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 151 ns +- 1 ns -> [pr_v2] 134 ns +- 4 ns: 1.13x faster
list(iter(range(1))): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 220 ns +- 1 ns -> [pr_v2] 204 ns +- 1 ns: 1.08x faster
range(2, 1): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 56.8 ns +- 0.4 ns -> [pr_v2] 54.5 ns +- 1.1 ns: 1.04x faster
iter(range(2, 1)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 90.1 ns +- 1.7 ns -> [pr_v2] 93.0 ns +- 3.5 ns: 1.03x slower
list(iter(range(2, 1))): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 213 ns +- 6 ns -> [pr_v2] 218 ns +- 3 ns: 1.02x slower
for loop length 1: Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 140 ns +- 7 ns -> [pr_v2] 118 ns +- 3 ns: 1.19x faster
range(10): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 49.8 ns +- 1.4 ns -> [pr_v2] 39.7 ns +- 1.2 ns: 1.25x faster
iter(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 82.2 ns +- 0.8 ns -> [pr_v2] 69.3 ns +- 3.3 ns: 1.19x faster
list(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 192 ns +- 4 ns -> [pr_v2] 176 ns +- 4 ns: 1.09x faster
list(iter(range(10))): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 262 ns +- 6 ns -> [pr_v2] 248 ns +- 6 ns: 1.05x faster
range(2, 10): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 57.5 ns +- 0.8 ns -> [pr_v2] 62.0 ns +- 1.8 ns: 1.08x slower
iter(range(2, 10)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 90.1 ns +- 2.2 ns -> [pr_v2] 106 ns +- 2 ns: 1.18x slower
list(iter(range(2, 10))): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 264 ns +- 12 ns -> [pr_v2] 282 ns +- 11 ns: 1.07x slower
for loop length 10: Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 313 ns +- 18 ns -> [pr_v2] 292 ns +- 15 ns: 1.07x faster
range(100): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 50.1 ns +- 2.7 ns -> [pr_v2] 40.6 ns +- 2.7 ns: 1.23x faster
iter(range(100)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 82.7 ns +- 2.5 ns -> [pr_v2] 69.7 ns +- 4.2 ns: 1.19x faster
list(range(100)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 599 ns +- 26 ns -> [pr_v2] 581 ns +- 10 ns: 1.03x faster
list(iter(range(100))): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 682 ns +- 45 ns -> [pr_v2] 663 ns +- 38 ns: 1.03x faster
range(2, 100): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 57.4 ns +- 0.6 ns -> [pr_v2] 62.3 ns +- 1.3 ns: 1.08x slower
iter(range(2, 100)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 90.3 ns +- 3.9 ns -> [pr_v2] 107 ns +- 5 ns: 1.19x slower
list(iter(range(2, 100))): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 689 ns +- 41 ns -> [pr_v2] 681 ns +- 16 ns: 1.01x faster
for loop length 100: Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 1.97 us +- 0.12 us -> [pr_v2] 1.90 us +- 0.04 us: 1.04x faster
range(400): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 63.2 ns +- 3.9 ns -> [pr_v2] 43.5 ns +- 3.3 ns: 1.45x faster
iter(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 100 ns +- 7 ns -> [pr_v2] 73.1 ns +- 4.3 ns: 1.37x faster
range(2, 400): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 71.6 ns +- 3.1 ns -> [pr_v2] 76.5 ns +- 3.6 ns: 1.07x slower
iter(range(2, 400)): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 107 ns +- 5 ns -> [pr_v2] 123 ns +- 4 ns: 1.15x slower
list(iter(range(2, 400))): Mean +- std dev: [main_v2] 3.76 us +- 0.12 us -> [pr_v2] 3.72 us +- 0.08 us: 1.01x faster

Benchmark hidden because not significant (3): list(range(400)), list(iter(range(400))), for loop length 400

Geometric mean: 1.06x faster

Benchmark script

(compiled with PGO, executed with --rigorous)

import pyperf
runner = pyperf.Runner()

loop = """
def g(n):
    x=0
    for ii in range(n):
        x += 1
"""
        
for s in [1, 10, 100, 400]:
	time = runner.timeit(name=f'range({s})', stmt=f"range({s})")
	time = runner.timeit(name=f'iter(range({s}))', stmt=f"iter(range({s}))")
	time = runner.timeit(name=f'list(range({s}))', stmt=f"list(range({s}))")
	time = runner.timeit(name=f'list(iter(range({s})))', stmt=f"list(iter(range({s})))")

	time = runner.timeit(name=f'range(2, {s})', stmt=f"range(2, {s})")
	time = runner.timeit(name=f'iter(range(2, {s}))', stmt=f"iter(range(2, {s}))")
	time = runner.timeit(name=f'list(iter(range(2, {s})))', stmt=f"list(iter(range(2, {s})))")

	time = runner.timeit(name=f'for loop length {s}', stmt=f"g({s})", setup=loop)

There is some noise in the data, but there are enough datapoints to make the trends clear. Most relevant for real applications are the for loop length * benchmarks.

erlend-aasland · 2024-05-30T12:46:24Z

So, if we exclude the iter optimisation, there will be no slowdowns (unlesss I misread the benchmark)?

eendebakpt · 2024-07-11T22:56:59Z

So, if we exclude the iter optimisation, there will be no slowdowns (unlesss I misread the benchmark)?

Both optimizations use the same check (two pointer comparisons to _PyLong_GetZero() and _PyLong_GetOne()), so I initially expected both to have the same (small) slowdown in the in slow path. But the test results above indeed suggest otherwise (although part if it is noise). I did more tests both with this PR and one with the iter optimalisation excluded and I think we can drop the iter optimization. The gain for the iter optimization is less than for the constructor and also in the range constructor PyLong_GetZero() is already available, whereas in the iter constructor it has to be called.

Two runs of benchmarks of main vs. the updated PR

range(10): Mean +- std dev: [main] 51.4 ns +- 2.8 ns -> [v3] 37.4 ns +- 1.7 ns: 1.38x faster
iter(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 83.8 ns +- 2.9 ns -> [v3] 70.3 ns +- 2.6 ns: 1.19x faster
list(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 154 ns +- 6 ns -> [v3] 128 ns +- 6 ns: 1.21x faster
list(iter(range(10))): Mean +- std dev: [main] 204 ns +- 12 ns -> [v3] 186 ns +- 7 ns: 1.10x faster
list(iter(range(2, 10))): Mean +- std dev: [main] 206 ns +- 10 ns -> [v3] 198 ns +- 8 ns: 1.04x faster
for loop length 10: Mean +- std dev: [main] 304 ns +- 14 ns -> [v3] 284 ns +- 14 ns: 1.07x faster
for loop range(2, 10): Mean +- std dev: [main] 279 ns +- 9 ns -> [v3] 274 ns +- 11 ns: 1.02x faster
range(400): Mean +- std dev: [main] 59.5 ns +- 2.6 ns -> [v3] 37.8 ns +- 1.5 ns: 1.58x faster
iter(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 96.0 ns +- 4.0 ns -> [v3] 70.5 ns +- 3.3 ns: 1.36x faster
list(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 2.37 us +- 0.10 us -> [v3] 2.20 us +- 0.09 us: 1.08x faster
list(iter(range(400))): Mean +- std dev: [main] 2.48 us +- 0.10 us -> [v3] 2.32 us +- 0.12 us: 1.07x faster
iter(range(2, 400)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 105 ns +- 4 ns -> [v3] 103 ns +- 4 ns: 1.02x faster
list(iter(range(2, 400))): Mean +- std dev: [main] 2.51 us +- 0.14 us -> [v3] 2.38 us +- 0.12 us: 1.06x faster

Benchmark hidden because not significant (5): range(2, 10), iter(range(2, 10)), range(2, 400), for loop length 400, for loop range(2, 400)

Geometric mean: 1.11x faster

range(10): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 47.5 ns +- 2.1 ns -> [v3tt] 37.3 ns +- 1.8 ns: 1.27x faster
iter(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 82.2 ns +- 3.5 ns -> [v3tt] 70.6 ns +- 2.7 ns: 1.16x faster
list(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 152 ns +- 5 ns -> [v3tt] 131 ns +- 5 ns: 1.16x faster
list(iter(range(10))): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 200 ns +- 8 ns -> [v3tt] 186 ns +- 6 ns: 1.07x faster
range(2, 10): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 59.1 ns +- 2.6 ns -> [v3tt] 58.4 ns +- 2.8 ns: 1.01x faster
iter(range(2, 10)): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 92.8 ns +- 3.2 ns -> [v3tt] 93.8 ns +- 3.2 ns: 1.01x slower
list(iter(range(2, 10))): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 206 ns +- 8 ns -> [v3tt] 202 ns +- 10 ns: 1.02x faster
for loop length 10: Mean +- std dev: [maint] 311 ns +- 17 ns -> [v3tt] 288 ns +- 10 ns: 1.08x faster
for loop range(2, 10): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 285 ns +- 13 ns -> [v3tt] 278 ns +- 12 ns: 1.02x faster
range(400): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 81.6 ns +- 23.9 ns -> [v3tt] 38.3 ns +- 1.8 ns: 2.13x faster
iter(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 115 ns +- 20 ns -> [v3tt] 72.5 ns +- 3.0 ns: 1.58x faster
list(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 2.52 us +- 0.14 us -> [v3tt] 2.34 us +- 0.11 us: 1.08x faster
list(iter(range(400))): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 2.46 us +- 0.13 us -> [v3tt] 2.43 us +- 0.13 us: 1.01x faster
range(2, 400): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 70.6 ns +- 2.9 ns -> [v3tt] 73.9 ns +- 3.5 ns: 1.05x slower
list(iter(range(2, 400))): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 2.59 us +- 0.23 us -> [v3tt] 2.51 us +- 0.14 us: 1.03x faster
for loop range(2, 400): Mean +- std dev: [maint] 9.91 us +- 0.55 us -> [v3tt] 11.1 us +- 1.5 us: 1.12x slower

Benchmark hidden because not significant (2): iter(range(2, 400)), for loop length 400

Geometric mean: 1.11x faster

erlend-aasland

LGTM. @serhiy-storchaka, any objections?

serhiy-storchaka

Please repeat benchmarks with the current code.

Objects/rangeobject.c

eendebakpt · 2025-02-06T22:12:21Z

New benchmarks (Ubuntu, with the new tail calling interpreter, non-PGO):

range(1): Mean +- std dev: [main] 52.0 ns +- 1.1 ns -> [pr] 38.8 ns +- 0.9 ns: 1.34x faster
iter(range(1)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 99.4 ns +- 2.6 ns -> [pr] 88.2 ns +- 2.9 ns: 1.13x faster
list(range(1)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 177 ns +- 2 ns -> [pr] 160 ns +- 2 ns: 1.11x faster
iter(range(2, 1)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 101 ns +- 1 ns -> [pr] 103 ns +- 2 ns: 1.03x slower
for loop length 1: Mean +- std dev: [main] 155 ns +- 8 ns -> [pr] 149 ns +- 5 ns: 1.04x faster
range(10): Mean +- std dev: [main] 52.2 ns +- 1.2 ns -> [pr] 41.2 ns +- 2.8 ns: 1.27x faster
iter(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 99.5 ns +- 2.5 ns -> [pr] 86.9 ns +- 1.5 ns: 1.15x faster
list(range(10)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 226 ns +- 12 ns -> [pr] 201 ns +- 3 ns: 1.13x faster
iter(range(2, 10)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 113 ns +- 4 ns -> [pr] 110 ns +- 2 ns: 1.03x faster
for loop length 10: Mean +- std dev: [main] 332 ns +- 11 ns -> [pr] 326 ns +- 15 ns: 1.02x faster
range(100): Mean +- std dev: [main] 54.0 ns +- 2.2 ns -> [pr] 39.6 ns +- 1.4 ns: 1.36x faster
iter(range(100)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 98.0 ns +- 1.0 ns -> [pr] 88.4 ns +- 2.6 ns: 1.11x faster
for loop length 100: Mean +- std dev: [main] 2.09 us +- 0.11 us -> [pr] 1.99 us +- 0.11 us: 1.05x faster
range(400): Mean +- std dev: [main] 65.9 ns +- 2.4 ns -> [pr] 40.9 ns +- 1.2 ns: 1.61x faster
iter(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 118 ns +- 10 ns -> [pr] 92.5 ns +- 5.2 ns: 1.28x faster
list(range(400)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 3.05 us +- 0.13 us -> [pr] 3.19 us +- 0.31 us: 1.05x slower
range(2, 400): Mean +- std dev: [main] 73.9 ns +- 7.7 ns -> [pr] 71.2 ns +- 2.0 ns: 1.04x faster
iter(range(2, 400)): Mean +- std dev: [main] 132 ns +- 7 ns -> [pr] 124 ns +- 3 ns: 1.07x faster
for loop length 400: Mean +- std dev: [main] 9.37 us +- 0.34 us -> [pr] 9.54 us +- 0.25 us: 1.02x slower

Benchmark hidden because not significant (5): range(2, 1), range(2, 10), list(range(100)), range(2, 100), iter(range(2, 100))

Geometric mean: 1.10x faster

erlend-aasland · 2025-02-10T22:24:08Z

Pieter, can you fix the linting CI? Let's land this!

erlend-aasland · 2025-05-12T20:11:41Z

I am not convinced that this change is worth to do, but I will not object against committing it if other core developer likes it.

I understand your concern. For example, we did not optimise zip creation using vector calls, since normally the loop itself would eat up the small performance gain. However, contrary to vectorcall optimisations, this is a trivial modification. It may be worth it for smaller loops. Benchmarks for such cases could be helpful.

bedevere-app bot added the awaiting review label Mar 7, 2024

bedevere-app bot mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2024

Improve performance of range #116477

Open

Add fast path for single-argument range

bf88016

eendebakpt force-pushed the fast_range_v2 branch from f3e6ab9 to bf88016 Compare March 7, 2024 22:26

eendebakpt and others added 2 commits March 7, 2024 23:26

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

f4d1162

📜🤖 Added by blurb_it.

8973518

serhiy-storchaka reviewed Mar 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core and Builtins/2024-03-07-22-38-07.gh-issue-116477.AqwRAV.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

eendebakpt and others added 3 commits March 8, 2024 15:07

Update Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core and Builtins/2024-03-07-22-38-07.gh-issu…

24d9b9a

…e-116477.AqwRAV.rst Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>

whitespace

cbbf211

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

b59002c

serhiy-storchaka reviewed Mar 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

Update Objects/rangeobject.c

b26893b

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>

eendebakpt commented Mar 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

Objects/rangeobject.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

eendebakpt added 4 commits March 8, 2024 17:26

Apply suggestions from code review

a110276

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

602501b

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

1014c0f

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

cbf8cab

erlend-aasland reviewed Apr 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

Objects/rangeobject.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

eendebakpt and others added 2 commits April 4, 2024 10:26

Update Objects/rangeobject.c

7462d77

Co-authored-by: Erlend E. Aasland <erlend.aasland@protonmail.com>

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

70f6f74

erlend-aasland approved these changes Apr 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

bedevere-app bot added awaiting merge and removed awaiting review labels Apr 4, 2024

erlend-aasland requested a review from serhiy-storchaka April 4, 2024 08:32

erlend-aasland changed the title ~~gh-116477: Improve performance of range~~ gh-116477: Improve performance of range for single arguments Apr 4, 2024

erlend-aasland changed the title ~~gh-116477: Improve performance of range for single arguments~~ gh-116477: Improve performance of range for the single argument case Apr 4, 2024

eendebakpt added 2 commits April 20, 2024 08:59

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

05780ea

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

2c2ae84

erlend-aasland approved these changes May 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

erlend-aasland self-assigned this May 20, 2024

serhiy-storchaka reviewed May 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

Objects/rangeobject.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

eendebakpt and others added 2 commits May 23, 2024 22:43

Update Objects/rangeobject.c

f1f9bd6

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

48da228

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

73eed5d

eendebakpt added 4 commits June 10, 2024 19:30

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

f389fb4

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

a28e2dc

revert iter optimization

903c7ab

update news entry

732a90b

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

7696583

erlend-aasland approved these changes Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

f619889

serhiy-storchaka reviewed Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

Objects/rangeobject.c Show resolved Hide resolved

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

565d1d8

eendebakpt added 2 commits February 11, 2025 10:52

lint

7b1e6f9

Merge branch 'main' into fast_range_v2

7d2428e

Uh oh!

Conversation

eendebakpt commented Mar 7, 2024 • edited by bedevere-app bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

serhiy-storchaka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

serhiy-storchaka Mar 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

eendebakpt Mar 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

erlend-aasland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

erlend-aasland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

serhiy-storchaka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

erlend-aasland commented May 28, 2024

Uh oh!

eendebakpt commented May 28, 2024

Uh oh!

erlend-aasland commented May 30, 2024

Uh oh!

eendebakpt commented Jul 11, 2024

Uh oh!

erlend-aasland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

serhiy-storchaka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eendebakpt commented Feb 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

erlend-aasland commented Feb 10, 2025

Uh oh!

erlend-aasland commented May 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

eendebakpt commented Mar 7, 2024 •

edited by bedevere-app bot

Loading

eendebakpt commented Feb 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading