-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 769
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Vectorcall support #684
Comments
@kngwyu I'd like to take this on |
Thank you, but I don't think we should change all things to use vectorcall now. |
Agreed. I plan to run a few experiments before I make any final PRs. Just wanted to give you a heads-up before I go too far so we don't end up duplicating the investigation! |
Based on what I've been reading, I think that there's a few places we can potentially use vectorcall:
Before this goes anywhere though, I've hit a stumbling block that I've asked about that in bpo-39773. |
A follow up to that. This means that at the very least the wrappers added in #641 are not quite correct, because they're defining symbols which can't be linked to. I'll come up with a PR sometime to clean that up. |
I think this can be closed now, yeah? |
Yes, we use vectorcall in both directions. There are cases where we can probably get more efficient (e.g. we always pass keywords as a dict) bit that conversation can continue in #4503 and related threads. |
Python 3.8 has a faster
__call__
protocol for C-FFI namd vectorcall.#641 added FFI functions for it, but we need more high level functions implemented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: