Recently it was a bit more tough to make that decision. First, there was much going privately, with me ill, then child ill, and ill again, and myself, and that made me have a much harder time to communicate about incomplete things.
Even now, I am torn between fixing issues for 0.6.1 and doing this, but I know that it will take at least one week, so I am missing the point, if I wait for it more.
Bear in mind, that this is supposed to be a quick, not too polished, and straight from top of my head, even if really a lot of content. But I feel that esp. the optimization parts are worth reading.
There has been another hotfix, 0.6.0.6 and there ought to be one 0.6.0.7, at least on factory there is a bunch of stuff for it, but I didn’t actually do it yet. I was wandering between there will be a release anyway, and the feeling that some of the material may cause regressions, so I might skip on that really.
So for the most fixes, I suspect, develop is going to be the way until next week.
Nobody has stepped up, which means it will not happen unfortunately. This would be your last chance to step up. I know you will feel not qualified. But I just need a backup that will help a student around obstacles in case I go missing. Contact me and I will be very happy.
As suggested by @wuoulf (Wolf Vollprecht) we had a meeting at the side of the PyCon DE 2018 conference in Karlsruhe, abusing the C++ regular table as a forum for that, which was a very nice experience.
First of all, Wolf is so much more knowledgeable about AnaConda and could point out to me, very important stuff, not the least, that AnaConda contains its own compiler, which I have successfully used since, to first add easier installation instructions for Windows, and second, to successfully statically link with LTO on Linux amd64. Both of which are important for me.
But for Pythran which is limited Python, specialized to translate Numpy API to C++, we showed each other, Nuitka and Pythran details, and somehow in my mind a plan formed how Nuitka could use the Pythran tricks long term, and mid term, how it could include a plugin that will allow to integrate with Pythran compilation.
This was a huge success.
See last week, this has seen more completion. Both + and += are more or less covered for the selected subset. The CPython test suites were initially not finding uses, but with more and more optimization phase improvements, it challenges code generation with missing ones, and then I added them more and more.
Shapes were added for the + and < operation so far, but didn’t influence anything else really but code generation, but of course they should also impact optimization phase.
So the query for type shape has been enhanced to return not only a type shape saying that int+float -> float, but also now an object that describes impact on control flow of the program. This can then say e.g. that this doesn’t execute arbitrary code, and that it does not modify input values, things used in the code generation to avoid error checks, and in the optimization to not have to mark things as unknown.
So optimization now also has proper type shape functions for the < and the warnings when they fail to know what to do for concrete types. This allows to actually remove checks, but so far this wasn’t exposed for neither + or for <. Doing this eliminates the exception check for the operation part, where previously it was done if anything in the expression could raise.
Specializing the rich comparisons helper codes is the next step, but so far I didn’t quite get to it yet, but it has been started.
Preparing < optimization for the loop, I noticed that not was optimized for in to become not in, and also is to become is not, etc. but for comparisons, where we can not the result is of bool shape, we can now also switch not < to >= and not = to != of course.
And since our reformulation of while a < b ends up having a statement like if not a < b: break as part of its re-formulation, that is again one step closer to optimizing my example loop.
Much to my shock, I noticed that the code which is responsible to handle escaping control flow (i.e. unknown code is executed), was not only doing what it was supposed to do, i.e. mark closure variables as unknown, but more or less did it for all local variables with Python3.
Fixing that allows for a lot more optimization obviously, and makes my test find missing ones, and even bugs in existing ones, that were previously hidden. A good thing to notice this regression (was better once), now that I am looking at concrete examples.
One noticeable sign was that more of my tests failed with warnings about missing code helpers. And another that in my while loop with int increase, it now seems as if Python3 is good. For Python2, the “int or long” shape will need dedicated helpers. That is because ìnt + int becomes either int or long there, where Python3 only has long but renamed it int.
Speedcenter got repaired, but I need to add the loop examples I am using as test cases before next release, so I can show what Nuitka 0.6.1 will have achieved or at least have improved somewhat already.
But currently these examples only serve as input for general improvements that then take a lot of time, and don’t have immediate impact on their own.
Still would be good to see where Nuitka is standing after each one.
Using Conda CC by default as a fallback in –mingw mode on Windows is something that was easy to add. So when no other gcc is found, and MSVC is not tried in this mode, and the right directory is added to PATH automatically, with Anaconda, things should now be smoother. It has also its own libpython.a, not sure yet if it’s a static link library, that would be fantastic, but unlike standard MinGW64 we do not have to roll our own at least.
I will try with –lto eventually though and see what it does. But I think static linking on Windows is not supported by CPython, but I am not entirely sure of that.
Found a 3.7 feature that is not covered by the test suite, the __future__ flag annotations wasn’t working as expected. In this, strings are to be used for __annotations__ where they show up (many are ignored simply) and that requires an unparse function, going from parsed ast (presumably it’s still syntax checked) back to the string, but that was only very hard to get at, and with evil hackery.
For 3.8 a bug fix is promised that will give us the string immediately, but for now my hack must suffice.
Following the 3.7.1 release, there are MSI files again, as the regression of 3.7.0 to build them has been fixed in that release. The MSI files will work with 3.7.0 also, just the building was broken.
So 0.6.1 is in still in full swing in terms of optimization. I think I need to make a release soon, simply because there is too much unreleased, but useful stuff already.
I might have to postpone my goal of C int performance for one example loop until next release. No harm in that. There already are plenty of performance improvements across the board.
I continue to be very active there.
And lets not forget, having followers make me happy. So do re-tweets.
Adding Twitter more prominently to the web site is something that is also going to happen.
If you are interested, I am tagging issues help wanted and there is a bunch, and very likely at least one you can help with.
Nuitka definitely needs more people to work on it.
If you want to help, but cannot spend the time, please consider to donate to Nuitka, and go here: