GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — gh-131798: JIT: Optimize `_CHECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_EX` and `_CHECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_KW` by Wulian233 · Pull Request #148494 · python/cpython

Conversation

@Wulian233

@Wulian233 Wulian233 commented Apr 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

While implementing this, I ran into a confusing problem. As shown in the diff below, when I assign f = sorted instead of calling sorted() directly, the JIT fails to recognize the optimization, causing the test to fail.

  def test_check_is_not_py_callable_kw(self):
      def testfunc(n):
          total = 0
-         xs = (3, 1, 2)
-         for _ in range(n):
-             total += sorted(xs, reverse=False)[0]
+         f = sorted
+         xs = (3, 1, 2)
+         for _ in range(n):
+             total += f(xs, reverse=False)[0]
          return total

      res, ex = self._run_with_optimizer(testfunc, TIER2_THRESHOLD)
      self.assertEqual(res, TIER2_THRESHOLD)
      self.assertIsNotNone(ex)
      uops = get_opnames(ex)
      self.assertNotIn("_CHECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_KW", uops)

Edit: Please add skip news

  • Issue: Better uop coverage in the JIT optimizer #131798

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
Wulian233 added 2 commits April 13, 2026 20:47
@Wulian233
pythongh-131798: JIT: Optimize _CHECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_KW and `_C…
b51bdcd
…HECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_EX`
@Wulian233
update
e47b631
@Wulian233
Wulian233 requested review from Fidget-Spinner, markshannon, savannahostrowski and tomasr8 as code owners April 13, 2026 12:55
@bedevere-app bedevere-app Bot added the awaiting review label Apr 13, 2026
@bedevere-app bedevere-app Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 13, 2026
Better uop coverage in the JIT optimizer #131798
Open
@Fidget-Spinner Fidget-Spinner added the skip news label Apr 13, 2026
@Fidget-Spinner

Fidget-Spinner commented Apr 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

While implementing this, I ran into a confusing problem. As shown in the diff below, when I assign f = sorted instead of calling sorted() directly, the JIT fails to recognize the optimization, causing the test to fail.

That's not really a problem, just how the JIT behaves. We only compile the region inside the for loop first, and then a function only if it's hot enough. As for the code example above you placed the sorted outside the for loop, the JIT has no visibility of it.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@Wulian233

Wulian233 commented Apr 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

oh I understand, thank you!

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Fidget-Spinner
Fidget-Spinner approved these changes Apr 13, 2026
View reviewed changes

@Fidget-Spinner Fidget-Spinner left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Thank you.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
@bedevere-app bedevere-app Bot added awaiting merge and removed awaiting review labels Apr 13, 2026
@Fidget-Spinner
Fidget-Spinner merged commit afaf58b into python:main Apr 13, 2026
77 checks passed

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@bedevere-app bedevere-app Bot removed the awaiting merge label Apr 13, 2026
@Wulian233
Wulian233 deleted the _CHECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_KW branch April 13, 2026 22:24
ljfp pushed a commit to ljfp/cpython that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2026
@Wulian233 @ljfp
pythongh-131798: JIT: Optimize _CHECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_EX and `_C…
9dca9b8
…HECK_IS_NOT_PY_CALLABLE_KW` (pythonGH-148494)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@Fidget-Spinner Fidget-Spinner Fidget-Spinner approved these changes
@markshannon markshannon Awaiting requested review from markshannon markshannon is a code owner
@tomasr8 tomasr8 Awaiting requested review from tomasr8 tomasr8 is a code owner
@savannahostrowski savannahostrowski Awaiting requested review from savannahostrowski

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

skip news

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

2 participants

@Wulian233 @Fidget-Spinner
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.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.