Does python reuse repeated calculation results?Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?Calling an external command from PythonWhat are metaclasses in Python?Finding the index of an item given a list containing it in PythonWhat does the “yield” keyword do?Does Python have a ternary conditional operator?How to get the current time in PythonWhat does if __name__ == “__main__”: do?If Python is interpreted, what are .pyc files?Does Python have a string 'contains' substring method?

I wasted six years of my life getting a PhD degree. What should I do, and how will I survive?

In countries where the Emergency Services can be called without a SIM card, what caller ID is shown to them when called from an iPhone?

What is the Bongcloud opening?

How to ask Firefox to suggest a password when filling out registration form on the web?

What type of glass fuse is this and what does the spring do?

Is concept of entropy really indispensable? Especially when the concept of potential energy can serve the purpose?

Why do we have to discharge the capacitor before testing it in an LCR Meter?

Am I obligated to pass on domain knowledge after being let go?

Are generation ships inherently implausible?

Positional thinking by Grandmasters

how to change position of label and icon in LWC

What is the difference between Cisco's QoS models and strategies?

femme - why pronounced but not spelt as "famme"

Reconstructed PIE grammar? Could we be able to speak in Proto-European?

Can a Sorcerer use the Silence spell and the Subtle Spell Metamagic to silently cast the Knock spell?

New manager unapproved PTO my old manager approved, because of a conference at the same time that's now a "condition of my employment here"

Do sine waves (pure tones) have overtones?

Is it OK for a Buddhist teacher to charge their students an hourly rate for their time?

Replace elements of a list if the conditional is false

Ball hits curve of same curvature

Is there any difference between 旅行者 and 旅人?

Why is Brownian motion useful in finance?

Rock, Paper, Scissors in C++

What is the typical CPU utilization of idle iMac?



Does python reuse repeated calculation results?


Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?Calling an external command from PythonWhat are metaclasses in Python?Finding the index of an item given a list containing it in PythonWhat does the “yield” keyword do?Does Python have a ternary conditional operator?How to get the current time in PythonWhat does if __name__ == “__main__”: do?If Python is interpreted, what are .pyc files?Does Python have a string 'contains' substring method?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









27


















If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice? I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language, e.g. C.



x = 1
y = 2
z = 3
r = (x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)


It has been suggested that this question is similar to this question. I believe it is similar. However, I believe the linked question is less of a 'minimal example'. Also in the linked question there is no ambiguity as to the order of operations, for example, in examples similar to this question, where there is no defined order for operations (mathematically), depending on the order of the individual function calls (which are ambiguous), a worse or better job of optimisation may be done. Consider (abba)(abba)(baa*b), there are nested repeated substrings, and depending on the order and amount of preprocessing many different optimisations could be performed.










share|improve this question






















  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?

    – Georgy
    Sep 29 at 8:35






  • 1





    Checked with C++, it simply returns 15 because all values are known. If you make the variables dependent on some input so it can't optimize them away, it calculates (x+y+z+3).

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 1 at 13:48






  • 1





    @SebastianWahl Did you mean it will compute 2*(x + y + z) + 3? Or something else? It would also be informative to indicate the compiler that you've used for checking that result.

    – a_guest
    Oct 2 at 9:54






  • 1





    @a_guest I misread the assembly here, it adds the result of (x + y + z) with itself and adds 3 in one instruction if I understand correct. It was GCC and you can see it online here and try other compilers: godbolt.org/z/PwxaxK

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 2 at 11:55

















27


















If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice? I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language, e.g. C.



x = 1
y = 2
z = 3
r = (x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)


It has been suggested that this question is similar to this question. I believe it is similar. However, I believe the linked question is less of a 'minimal example'. Also in the linked question there is no ambiguity as to the order of operations, for example, in examples similar to this question, where there is no defined order for operations (mathematically), depending on the order of the individual function calls (which are ambiguous), a worse or better job of optimisation may be done. Consider (abba)(abba)(baa*b), there are nested repeated substrings, and depending on the order and amount of preprocessing many different optimisations could be performed.










share|improve this question






















  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?

    – Georgy
    Sep 29 at 8:35






  • 1





    Checked with C++, it simply returns 15 because all values are known. If you make the variables dependent on some input so it can't optimize them away, it calculates (x+y+z+3).

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 1 at 13:48






  • 1





    @SebastianWahl Did you mean it will compute 2*(x + y + z) + 3? Or something else? It would also be informative to indicate the compiler that you've used for checking that result.

    – a_guest
    Oct 2 at 9:54






  • 1





    @a_guest I misread the assembly here, it adds the result of (x + y + z) with itself and adds 3 in one instruction if I understand correct. It was GCC and you can see it online here and try other compilers: godbolt.org/z/PwxaxK

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 2 at 11:55













27













27









27


0






If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice? I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language, e.g. C.



x = 1
y = 2
z = 3
r = (x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)


It has been suggested that this question is similar to this question. I believe it is similar. However, I believe the linked question is less of a 'minimal example'. Also in the linked question there is no ambiguity as to the order of operations, for example, in examples similar to this question, where there is no defined order for operations (mathematically), depending on the order of the individual function calls (which are ambiguous), a worse or better job of optimisation may be done. Consider (abba)(abba)(baa*b), there are nested repeated substrings, and depending on the order and amount of preprocessing many different optimisations could be performed.










share|improve this question
















If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice? I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language, e.g. C.



x = 1
y = 2
z = 3
r = (x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)


It has been suggested that this question is similar to this question. I believe it is similar. However, I believe the linked question is less of a 'minimal example'. Also in the linked question there is no ambiguity as to the order of operations, for example, in examples similar to this question, where there is no defined order for operations (mathematically), depending on the order of the individual function calls (which are ambiguous), a worse or better job of optimisation may be done. Consider (abba)(abba)(baa*b), there are nested repeated substrings, and depending on the order and amount of preprocessing many different optimisations could be performed.







python interpreter interpreted-language






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 3 at 20:07







user189076

















asked Sep 28 at 13:40









user189076user189076

4193 silver badges6 bronze badges




4193 silver badges6 bronze badges










  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?

    – Georgy
    Sep 29 at 8:35






  • 1





    Checked with C++, it simply returns 15 because all values are known. If you make the variables dependent on some input so it can't optimize them away, it calculates (x+y+z+3).

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 1 at 13:48






  • 1





    @SebastianWahl Did you mean it will compute 2*(x + y + z) + 3? Or something else? It would also be informative to indicate the compiler that you've used for checking that result.

    – a_guest
    Oct 2 at 9:54






  • 1





    @a_guest I misread the assembly here, it adds the result of (x + y + z) with itself and adds 3 in one instruction if I understand correct. It was GCC and you can see it online here and try other compilers: godbolt.org/z/PwxaxK

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 2 at 11:55












  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?

    – Georgy
    Sep 29 at 8:35






  • 1





    Checked with C++, it simply returns 15 because all values are known. If you make the variables dependent on some input so it can't optimize them away, it calculates (x+y+z+3).

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 1 at 13:48






  • 1





    @SebastianWahl Did you mean it will compute 2*(x + y + z) + 3? Or something else? It would also be informative to indicate the compiler that you've used for checking that result.

    – a_guest
    Oct 2 at 9:54






  • 1





    @a_guest I misread the assembly here, it adds the result of (x + y + z) with itself and adds 3 in one instruction if I understand correct. It was GCC and you can see it online here and try other compilers: godbolt.org/z/PwxaxK

    – Sebastian Wahl
    Oct 2 at 11:55







1




1





Possible duplicate of Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?

– Georgy
Sep 29 at 8:35





Possible duplicate of Does Python automatically optimize/cache function calls?

– Georgy
Sep 29 at 8:35




1




1





Checked with C++, it simply returns 15 because all values are known. If you make the variables dependent on some input so it can't optimize them away, it calculates (x+y+z+3).

– Sebastian Wahl
Oct 1 at 13:48





Checked with C++, it simply returns 15 because all values are known. If you make the variables dependent on some input so it can't optimize them away, it calculates (x+y+z+3).

– Sebastian Wahl
Oct 1 at 13:48




1




1





@SebastianWahl Did you mean it will compute 2*(x + y + z) + 3? Or something else? It would also be informative to indicate the compiler that you've used for checking that result.

– a_guest
Oct 2 at 9:54





@SebastianWahl Did you mean it will compute 2*(x + y + z) + 3? Or something else? It would also be informative to indicate the compiler that you've used for checking that result.

– a_guest
Oct 2 at 9:54




1




1





@a_guest I misread the assembly here, it adds the result of (x + y + z) with itself and adds 3 in one instruction if I understand correct. It was GCC and you can see it online here and try other compilers: godbolt.org/z/PwxaxK

– Sebastian Wahl
Oct 2 at 11:55





@a_guest I misread the assembly here, it adds the result of (x + y + z) with itself and adds 3 in one instruction if I understand correct. It was GCC and you can see it online here and try other compilers: godbolt.org/z/PwxaxK

– Sebastian Wahl
Oct 2 at 11:55












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















20



















You can check that with dis.dis. The output is:



 2 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)

3 4 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
6 STORE_NAME 1 (y)

4 8 LOAD_CONST 2 (3)
10 STORE_NAME 2 (z)

5 12 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
14 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
16 BINARY_ADD
18 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
20 BINARY_ADD
22 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
24 BINARY_ADD
26 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
28 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
30 BINARY_ADD
32 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
34 BINARY_ADD
36 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
38 BINARY_ADD
40 BINARY_ADD
42 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
44 LOAD_CONST 3 (None)
46 RETURN_VALUE


So it won't cache the result of the expression in parentheses. Though for that specific case it would be possible, in general it is not, since custom classes can define __add__ (or any other binary operation) to modify themselves. For example:



class Foo:
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value

def __add__(self, other):
self.value += 1
return self.value + other

x = Foo(1)
y = 2
z = 3
print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 8
print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 9


If you have an expensive function of which you would like to cache the result, you can do so via functools.lru_cache for example.



On the other hand, the compiler will perform constant folding as can be seen from the following examples:



>>> import dis
>>> dis.dis("x = 'abc' * 5")
1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 ('abcabcabcabcabc')
2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
6 RETURN_VALUE
>>> dis.dis("x = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4")
1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (10)
2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
6 RETURN_VALUE





share|improve this answer


































    4



















    EDIT: This answer applies only to the default CPython interpreter of the Python language. It may not be applicable to other Python implementations that adopts JIT compilation techniques or uses a restricted Python sublanguage that allows static type inference. See @Jörg W Mittag's answer for more details.



    No it will not. You can do this to see the compiled code:



    from dis import dis
    dis("r=(x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)")


    Output:



     0 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
    2 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
    4 BINARY_ADD
    6 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
    8 BINARY_ADD
    10 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
    12 BINARY_ADD
    14 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
    16 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
    18 BINARY_ADD
    20 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
    22 BINARY_ADD
    24 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
    26 BINARY_ADD
    28 BINARY_ADD
    30 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
    32 LOAD_CONST 2 (None)
    34 RETURN_VALUE


    This is partially because Python is dynamically-typed. So the types of variables are not easily known at compile time. And the compiler has no way to know whether the + operator, which can be overloaded by user classes, could have any side effect at all. Consider the following simple example:



    class A:
    def __init__(self, v):
    self.value = v

    def __add__(self, b):
    print(b)
    return self.value + b

    x = A(3)
    y = 4
    r = (x + y + 1) + (x + y + 2)


    For simple expressions, you can just save the intermediate results to a new variable:



    z = x + y + 1
    r = z + (z + 1)


    For functions calls, functools.lru_cache is another option, as already indicated by other answers.






    share|improve this answer


































      3




















      If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice?




      Which Python interpreter are you talking about? There are currently four production-ready, stable Python implementations in widespread use. None of those actually have a Python interpreter, every single one of them compiles Python.



      Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



      The Python Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming Python implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.



      I am pretty certain that, contrary to all the other answers which state that Python cannot do this, PyPy is capable of performing this optimization. Also, depending on which underlying platform you use, code executed using Jython or IronPython will also benefit from this optimization, e.g. I am 100% certain that the C2 compiler of Oracle HotSpot does perform this optimization.




      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language […].




      There is no such thing as a "compiled language". Compilation and interpretation are traits of the compiler or interpreter (duh!) not the language. Every language can be implemented by a compiler, and every language can be implemented by an interpreter. Case in point: there are interpreters for C, and conversely, every currently existing production-ready, stable, widely-used implementation of Python, ECMAScript, Ruby, and PHP has at least one compiler, many even have more than one (e.g. PyPy, V8, SpiderMonkey, Squirrelfish Extreme, Chakra).



      A language is an abstract set of mathematical rules and restrictions written on a piece of paper. A language is neither compiled nor interpreted, a language just is. Those concepts live on different layers of abstraction; if English were a typed language, the term "compiled language" would be a type error.




      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for […] e.g. C.




      There are many production-ready, stable C implementations in widespread use. Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



      The C Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming C implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.






      share|improve this answer

























      • Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis. And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types (or maybe the optimization only applies to the scenarios where the types can be clearly inferred?). In Python, type hints are just annotations and runtime checking is not enforced at all (see more details).

        – GZ0
        Sep 29 at 13:59












      • "Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis" – dis.dis will only show you the optimizations that the Python-to-bytecode compiler makes, which is actually a pretty simple and "stupid" compiler that performs almost no optimizations. Also, it is a static ahead-of-time compiler, so it has to contend with all the limitations the Halting Problems and Rice's Theorem entail. However, in PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, that bytecode is usually compiled further to native machine code, and that compiler is much more sophisticated.

        – Jörg W Mittag
        Sep 29 at 14:05






      • 1





        "And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types" – What makes you think an optimizer doesn't have knowledge of runtime types? The whole reason why many modern high-performance language execution engines delay compilation until runtime is precisely because that way the optimizer has access not only to runtime types, but also to runtime profiling data, data access patterns, branch statistics, etc. Even further, a compiler that is capable of de-optimization (such as HotSpot's) can make speculative unsafe optimizations and just remove them again when …

        – Jörg W Mittag
        Sep 29 at 14:06







      • 1





        … it realizes that its speculation was wrong. I.e. it could remove the common subexpression under the assumption that it doesn't have any side-effects even if it can't prove that it doesn't have side-effects, but monitor it for side-effects, and when it detects a side-effect, it just recompiles that particular piece of code without CSE.

        – Jörg W Mittag
        Sep 29 at 14:08












      • Unlike statically-typed languages such as C / Java, Python is dynamically typed so inferring runtime types is a fairly complicated task. I just checked that it is possible for the RPython subset of Python which imposes more restrictions to allow type inferences.

        – GZ0
        Sep 29 at 14:18


















      1



















      No, python doesn't do that by default. f you need python to preserve the result of a certain calculation for you, you need to implicitly tell python to do that, one way to do this would be by defining a function and using functools.lru_cache docs:



      from functools import lru_cache

      @lru_cache(maxsize=32)
      def add3(x,y,z):
      return x + y + z

      x=1
      y=2
      z=3
      r = (add3(x,y,z)+1) + (add3(x,y,z)+2)





      share|improve this answer



























      • "No, python doesn't do that by default since it would use up too much memory ..." - Do you have a source for your claim that memory usage is the reason? Because honestly, I'm pretty sceptical of that.

        – marcelm
        Sep 28 at 23:30






      • 2





        The reason is not that the common subexpression elimination “would use up too much memory”; it is that the transformation is not sound in Python because the language is too dynamic.

        – wchargin
        Sep 28 at 23:30











      • @marcelm sorry.

        – yukashima huksay
        Sep 29 at 4:53












      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      );
      );
      , "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );














      draft saved

      draft discarded
















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f58146860%2fdoes-python-reuse-repeated-calculation-results%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown


























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      20



















      You can check that with dis.dis. The output is:



       2 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
      2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)

      3 4 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
      6 STORE_NAME 1 (y)

      4 8 LOAD_CONST 2 (3)
      10 STORE_NAME 2 (z)

      5 12 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
      14 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
      16 BINARY_ADD
      18 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
      20 BINARY_ADD
      22 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
      24 BINARY_ADD
      26 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
      28 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
      30 BINARY_ADD
      32 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
      34 BINARY_ADD
      36 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
      38 BINARY_ADD
      40 BINARY_ADD
      42 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
      44 LOAD_CONST 3 (None)
      46 RETURN_VALUE


      So it won't cache the result of the expression in parentheses. Though for that specific case it would be possible, in general it is not, since custom classes can define __add__ (or any other binary operation) to modify themselves. For example:



      class Foo:
      def __init__(self, value):
      self.value = value

      def __add__(self, other):
      self.value += 1
      return self.value + other

      x = Foo(1)
      y = 2
      z = 3
      print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 8
      print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 9


      If you have an expensive function of which you would like to cache the result, you can do so via functools.lru_cache for example.



      On the other hand, the compiler will perform constant folding as can be seen from the following examples:



      >>> import dis
      >>> dis.dis("x = 'abc' * 5")
      1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 ('abcabcabcabcabc')
      2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
      4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
      6 RETURN_VALUE
      >>> dis.dis("x = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4")
      1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (10)
      2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
      4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
      6 RETURN_VALUE





      share|improve this answer































        20



















        You can check that with dis.dis. The output is:



         2 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
        2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)

        3 4 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
        6 STORE_NAME 1 (y)

        4 8 LOAD_CONST 2 (3)
        10 STORE_NAME 2 (z)

        5 12 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
        14 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
        16 BINARY_ADD
        18 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
        20 BINARY_ADD
        22 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
        24 BINARY_ADD
        26 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
        28 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
        30 BINARY_ADD
        32 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
        34 BINARY_ADD
        36 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
        38 BINARY_ADD
        40 BINARY_ADD
        42 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
        44 LOAD_CONST 3 (None)
        46 RETURN_VALUE


        So it won't cache the result of the expression in parentheses. Though for that specific case it would be possible, in general it is not, since custom classes can define __add__ (or any other binary operation) to modify themselves. For example:



        class Foo:
        def __init__(self, value):
        self.value = value

        def __add__(self, other):
        self.value += 1
        return self.value + other

        x = Foo(1)
        y = 2
        z = 3
        print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 8
        print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 9


        If you have an expensive function of which you would like to cache the result, you can do so via functools.lru_cache for example.



        On the other hand, the compiler will perform constant folding as can be seen from the following examples:



        >>> import dis
        >>> dis.dis("x = 'abc' * 5")
        1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 ('abcabcabcabcabc')
        2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
        4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
        6 RETURN_VALUE
        >>> dis.dis("x = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4")
        1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (10)
        2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
        4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
        6 RETURN_VALUE





        share|improve this answer





























          20















          20











          20









          You can check that with dis.dis. The output is:



           2 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
          2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)

          3 4 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
          6 STORE_NAME 1 (y)

          4 8 LOAD_CONST 2 (3)
          10 STORE_NAME 2 (z)

          5 12 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
          14 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
          16 BINARY_ADD
          18 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
          20 BINARY_ADD
          22 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
          24 BINARY_ADD
          26 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
          28 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
          30 BINARY_ADD
          32 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
          34 BINARY_ADD
          36 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
          38 BINARY_ADD
          40 BINARY_ADD
          42 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
          44 LOAD_CONST 3 (None)
          46 RETURN_VALUE


          So it won't cache the result of the expression in parentheses. Though for that specific case it would be possible, in general it is not, since custom classes can define __add__ (or any other binary operation) to modify themselves. For example:



          class Foo:
          def __init__(self, value):
          self.value = value

          def __add__(self, other):
          self.value += 1
          return self.value + other

          x = Foo(1)
          y = 2
          z = 3
          print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 8
          print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 9


          If you have an expensive function of which you would like to cache the result, you can do so via functools.lru_cache for example.



          On the other hand, the compiler will perform constant folding as can be seen from the following examples:



          >>> import dis
          >>> dis.dis("x = 'abc' * 5")
          1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 ('abcabcabcabcabc')
          2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
          4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
          6 RETURN_VALUE
          >>> dis.dis("x = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4")
          1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (10)
          2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
          4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
          6 RETURN_VALUE





          share|improve this answer
















          You can check that with dis.dis. The output is:



           2 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
          2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)

          3 4 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
          6 STORE_NAME 1 (y)

          4 8 LOAD_CONST 2 (3)
          10 STORE_NAME 2 (z)

          5 12 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
          14 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
          16 BINARY_ADD
          18 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
          20 BINARY_ADD
          22 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
          24 BINARY_ADD
          26 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
          28 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
          30 BINARY_ADD
          32 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
          34 BINARY_ADD
          36 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
          38 BINARY_ADD
          40 BINARY_ADD
          42 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
          44 LOAD_CONST 3 (None)
          46 RETURN_VALUE


          So it won't cache the result of the expression in parentheses. Though for that specific case it would be possible, in general it is not, since custom classes can define __add__ (or any other binary operation) to modify themselves. For example:



          class Foo:
          def __init__(self, value):
          self.value = value

          def __add__(self, other):
          self.value += 1
          return self.value + other

          x = Foo(1)
          y = 2
          z = 3
          print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 8
          print(x + y + z + 1) # prints 9


          If you have an expensive function of which you would like to cache the result, you can do so via functools.lru_cache for example.



          On the other hand, the compiler will perform constant folding as can be seen from the following examples:



          >>> import dis
          >>> dis.dis("x = 'abc' * 5")
          1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 ('abcabcabcabcabc')
          2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
          4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
          6 RETURN_VALUE
          >>> dis.dis("x = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4")
          1 0 LOAD_CONST 0 (10)
          2 STORE_NAME 0 (x)
          4 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
          6 RETURN_VALUE






          share|improve this answer















          share|improve this answer




          share|improve this answer








          edited Sep 28 at 14:09

























          answered Sep 28 at 14:00









          a_guesta_guest

          11.6k3 gold badges21 silver badges57 bronze badges




          11.6k3 gold badges21 silver badges57 bronze badges


























              4



















              EDIT: This answer applies only to the default CPython interpreter of the Python language. It may not be applicable to other Python implementations that adopts JIT compilation techniques or uses a restricted Python sublanguage that allows static type inference. See @Jörg W Mittag's answer for more details.



              No it will not. You can do this to see the compiled code:



              from dis import dis
              dis("r=(x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)")


              Output:



               0 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
              2 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
              4 BINARY_ADD
              6 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
              8 BINARY_ADD
              10 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
              12 BINARY_ADD
              14 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
              16 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
              18 BINARY_ADD
              20 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
              22 BINARY_ADD
              24 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
              26 BINARY_ADD
              28 BINARY_ADD
              30 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
              32 LOAD_CONST 2 (None)
              34 RETURN_VALUE


              This is partially because Python is dynamically-typed. So the types of variables are not easily known at compile time. And the compiler has no way to know whether the + operator, which can be overloaded by user classes, could have any side effect at all. Consider the following simple example:



              class A:
              def __init__(self, v):
              self.value = v

              def __add__(self, b):
              print(b)
              return self.value + b

              x = A(3)
              y = 4
              r = (x + y + 1) + (x + y + 2)


              For simple expressions, you can just save the intermediate results to a new variable:



              z = x + y + 1
              r = z + (z + 1)


              For functions calls, functools.lru_cache is another option, as already indicated by other answers.






              share|improve this answer































                4



















                EDIT: This answer applies only to the default CPython interpreter of the Python language. It may not be applicable to other Python implementations that adopts JIT compilation techniques or uses a restricted Python sublanguage that allows static type inference. See @Jörg W Mittag's answer for more details.



                No it will not. You can do this to see the compiled code:



                from dis import dis
                dis("r=(x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)")


                Output:



                 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
                2 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
                4 BINARY_ADD
                6 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
                8 BINARY_ADD
                10 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
                12 BINARY_ADD
                14 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
                16 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
                18 BINARY_ADD
                20 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
                22 BINARY_ADD
                24 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
                26 BINARY_ADD
                28 BINARY_ADD
                30 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
                32 LOAD_CONST 2 (None)
                34 RETURN_VALUE


                This is partially because Python is dynamically-typed. So the types of variables are not easily known at compile time. And the compiler has no way to know whether the + operator, which can be overloaded by user classes, could have any side effect at all. Consider the following simple example:



                class A:
                def __init__(self, v):
                self.value = v

                def __add__(self, b):
                print(b)
                return self.value + b

                x = A(3)
                y = 4
                r = (x + y + 1) + (x + y + 2)


                For simple expressions, you can just save the intermediate results to a new variable:



                z = x + y + 1
                r = z + (z + 1)


                For functions calls, functools.lru_cache is another option, as already indicated by other answers.






                share|improve this answer





























                  4















                  4











                  4









                  EDIT: This answer applies only to the default CPython interpreter of the Python language. It may not be applicable to other Python implementations that adopts JIT compilation techniques or uses a restricted Python sublanguage that allows static type inference. See @Jörg W Mittag's answer for more details.



                  No it will not. You can do this to see the compiled code:



                  from dis import dis
                  dis("r=(x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)")


                  Output:



                   0 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
                  2 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
                  4 BINARY_ADD
                  6 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
                  8 BINARY_ADD
                  10 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
                  12 BINARY_ADD
                  14 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
                  16 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
                  18 BINARY_ADD
                  20 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
                  22 BINARY_ADD
                  24 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
                  26 BINARY_ADD
                  28 BINARY_ADD
                  30 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
                  32 LOAD_CONST 2 (None)
                  34 RETURN_VALUE


                  This is partially because Python is dynamically-typed. So the types of variables are not easily known at compile time. And the compiler has no way to know whether the + operator, which can be overloaded by user classes, could have any side effect at all. Consider the following simple example:



                  class A:
                  def __init__(self, v):
                  self.value = v

                  def __add__(self, b):
                  print(b)
                  return self.value + b

                  x = A(3)
                  y = 4
                  r = (x + y + 1) + (x + y + 2)


                  For simple expressions, you can just save the intermediate results to a new variable:



                  z = x + y + 1
                  r = z + (z + 1)


                  For functions calls, functools.lru_cache is another option, as already indicated by other answers.






                  share|improve this answer
















                  EDIT: This answer applies only to the default CPython interpreter of the Python language. It may not be applicable to other Python implementations that adopts JIT compilation techniques or uses a restricted Python sublanguage that allows static type inference. See @Jörg W Mittag's answer for more details.



                  No it will not. You can do this to see the compiled code:



                  from dis import dis
                  dis("r=(x+y+z+1) + (x+y+z+2)")


                  Output:



                   0 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
                  2 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
                  4 BINARY_ADD
                  6 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
                  8 BINARY_ADD
                  10 LOAD_CONST 0 (1)
                  12 BINARY_ADD
                  14 LOAD_NAME 0 (x)
                  16 LOAD_NAME 1 (y)
                  18 BINARY_ADD
                  20 LOAD_NAME 2 (z)
                  22 BINARY_ADD
                  24 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
                  26 BINARY_ADD
                  28 BINARY_ADD
                  30 STORE_NAME 3 (r)
                  32 LOAD_CONST 2 (None)
                  34 RETURN_VALUE


                  This is partially because Python is dynamically-typed. So the types of variables are not easily known at compile time. And the compiler has no way to know whether the + operator, which can be overloaded by user classes, could have any side effect at all. Consider the following simple example:



                  class A:
                  def __init__(self, v):
                  self.value = v

                  def __add__(self, b):
                  print(b)
                  return self.value + b

                  x = A(3)
                  y = 4
                  r = (x + y + 1) + (x + y + 2)


                  For simple expressions, you can just save the intermediate results to a new variable:



                  z = x + y + 1
                  r = z + (z + 1)


                  For functions calls, functools.lru_cache is another option, as already indicated by other answers.







                  share|improve this answer















                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Sep 29 at 15:43

























                  answered Sep 28 at 13:58









                  GZ0GZ0

                  2,5081 gold badge3 silver badges15 bronze badges




                  2,5081 gold badge3 silver badges15 bronze badges
























                      3




















                      If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice?




                      Which Python interpreter are you talking about? There are currently four production-ready, stable Python implementations in widespread use. None of those actually have a Python interpreter, every single one of them compiles Python.



                      Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The Python Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming Python implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.



                      I am pretty certain that, contrary to all the other answers which state that Python cannot do this, PyPy is capable of performing this optimization. Also, depending on which underlying platform you use, code executed using Jython or IronPython will also benefit from this optimization, e.g. I am 100% certain that the C2 compiler of Oracle HotSpot does perform this optimization.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language […].




                      There is no such thing as a "compiled language". Compilation and interpretation are traits of the compiler or interpreter (duh!) not the language. Every language can be implemented by a compiler, and every language can be implemented by an interpreter. Case in point: there are interpreters for C, and conversely, every currently existing production-ready, stable, widely-used implementation of Python, ECMAScript, Ruby, and PHP has at least one compiler, many even have more than one (e.g. PyPy, V8, SpiderMonkey, Squirrelfish Extreme, Chakra).



                      A language is an abstract set of mathematical rules and restrictions written on a piece of paper. A language is neither compiled nor interpreted, a language just is. Those concepts live on different layers of abstraction; if English were a typed language, the term "compiled language" would be a type error.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for […] e.g. C.




                      There are many production-ready, stable C implementations in widespread use. Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The C Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming C implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis. And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types (or maybe the optimization only applies to the scenarios where the types can be clearly inferred?). In Python, type hints are just annotations and runtime checking is not enforced at all (see more details).

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 13:59












                      • "Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis" – dis.dis will only show you the optimizations that the Python-to-bytecode compiler makes, which is actually a pretty simple and "stupid" compiler that performs almost no optimizations. Also, it is a static ahead-of-time compiler, so it has to contend with all the limitations the Halting Problems and Rice's Theorem entail. However, in PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, that bytecode is usually compiled further to native machine code, and that compiler is much more sophisticated.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:05






                      • 1





                        "And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types" – What makes you think an optimizer doesn't have knowledge of runtime types? The whole reason why many modern high-performance language execution engines delay compilation until runtime is precisely because that way the optimizer has access not only to runtime types, but also to runtime profiling data, data access patterns, branch statistics, etc. Even further, a compiler that is capable of de-optimization (such as HotSpot's) can make speculative unsafe optimizations and just remove them again when …

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:06







                      • 1





                        … it realizes that its speculation was wrong. I.e. it could remove the common subexpression under the assumption that it doesn't have any side-effects even if it can't prove that it doesn't have side-effects, but monitor it for side-effects, and when it detects a side-effect, it just recompiles that particular piece of code without CSE.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:08












                      • Unlike statically-typed languages such as C / Java, Python is dynamically typed so inferring runtime types is a fairly complicated task. I just checked that it is possible for the RPython subset of Python which imposes more restrictions to allow type inferences.

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 14:18















                      3




















                      If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice?




                      Which Python interpreter are you talking about? There are currently four production-ready, stable Python implementations in widespread use. None of those actually have a Python interpreter, every single one of them compiles Python.



                      Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The Python Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming Python implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.



                      I am pretty certain that, contrary to all the other answers which state that Python cannot do this, PyPy is capable of performing this optimization. Also, depending on which underlying platform you use, code executed using Jython or IronPython will also benefit from this optimization, e.g. I am 100% certain that the C2 compiler of Oracle HotSpot does perform this optimization.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language […].




                      There is no such thing as a "compiled language". Compilation and interpretation are traits of the compiler or interpreter (duh!) not the language. Every language can be implemented by a compiler, and every language can be implemented by an interpreter. Case in point: there are interpreters for C, and conversely, every currently existing production-ready, stable, widely-used implementation of Python, ECMAScript, Ruby, and PHP has at least one compiler, many even have more than one (e.g. PyPy, V8, SpiderMonkey, Squirrelfish Extreme, Chakra).



                      A language is an abstract set of mathematical rules and restrictions written on a piece of paper. A language is neither compiled nor interpreted, a language just is. Those concepts live on different layers of abstraction; if English were a typed language, the term "compiled language" would be a type error.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for […] e.g. C.




                      There are many production-ready, stable C implementations in widespread use. Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The C Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming C implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis. And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types (or maybe the optimization only applies to the scenarios where the types can be clearly inferred?). In Python, type hints are just annotations and runtime checking is not enforced at all (see more details).

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 13:59












                      • "Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis" – dis.dis will only show you the optimizations that the Python-to-bytecode compiler makes, which is actually a pretty simple and "stupid" compiler that performs almost no optimizations. Also, it is a static ahead-of-time compiler, so it has to contend with all the limitations the Halting Problems and Rice's Theorem entail. However, in PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, that bytecode is usually compiled further to native machine code, and that compiler is much more sophisticated.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:05






                      • 1





                        "And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types" – What makes you think an optimizer doesn't have knowledge of runtime types? The whole reason why many modern high-performance language execution engines delay compilation until runtime is precisely because that way the optimizer has access not only to runtime types, but also to runtime profiling data, data access patterns, branch statistics, etc. Even further, a compiler that is capable of de-optimization (such as HotSpot's) can make speculative unsafe optimizations and just remove them again when …

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:06







                      • 1





                        … it realizes that its speculation was wrong. I.e. it could remove the common subexpression under the assumption that it doesn't have any side-effects even if it can't prove that it doesn't have side-effects, but monitor it for side-effects, and when it detects a side-effect, it just recompiles that particular piece of code without CSE.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:08












                      • Unlike statically-typed languages such as C / Java, Python is dynamically typed so inferring runtime types is a fairly complicated task. I just checked that it is possible for the RPython subset of Python which imposes more restrictions to allow type inferences.

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 14:18













                      3















                      3











                      3










                      If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice?




                      Which Python interpreter are you talking about? There are currently four production-ready, stable Python implementations in widespread use. None of those actually have a Python interpreter, every single one of them compiles Python.



                      Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The Python Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming Python implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.



                      I am pretty certain that, contrary to all the other answers which state that Python cannot do this, PyPy is capable of performing this optimization. Also, depending on which underlying platform you use, code executed using Jython or IronPython will also benefit from this optimization, e.g. I am 100% certain that the C2 compiler of Oracle HotSpot does perform this optimization.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language […].




                      There is no such thing as a "compiled language". Compilation and interpretation are traits of the compiler or interpreter (duh!) not the language. Every language can be implemented by a compiler, and every language can be implemented by an interpreter. Case in point: there are interpreters for C, and conversely, every currently existing production-ready, stable, widely-used implementation of Python, ECMAScript, Ruby, and PHP has at least one compiler, many even have more than one (e.g. PyPy, V8, SpiderMonkey, Squirrelfish Extreme, Chakra).



                      A language is an abstract set of mathematical rules and restrictions written on a piece of paper. A language is neither compiled nor interpreted, a language just is. Those concepts live on different layers of abstraction; if English were a typed language, the term "compiled language" would be a type error.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for […] e.g. C.




                      There are many production-ready, stable C implementations in widespread use. Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The C Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming C implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.






                      share|improve this answer















                      If I have an expression that I wish to evaluate in Python, such as the expression for r in the code snippet below, will the Python interpreter be smart and reuse the subresult x+y+z, or just evaluate it twice?




                      Which Python interpreter are you talking about? There are currently four production-ready, stable Python implementations in widespread use. None of those actually have a Python interpreter, every single one of them compiles Python.



                      Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The Python Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming Python implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.



                      I am pretty certain that, contrary to all the other answers which state that Python cannot do this, PyPy is capable of performing this optimization. Also, depending on which underlying platform you use, code executed using Jython or IronPython will also benefit from this optimization, e.g. I am 100% certain that the C2 compiler of Oracle HotSpot does perform this optimization.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for a compiled language […].




                      There is no such thing as a "compiled language". Compilation and interpretation are traits of the compiler or interpreter (duh!) not the language. Every language can be implemented by a compiler, and every language can be implemented by an interpreter. Case in point: there are interpreters for C, and conversely, every currently existing production-ready, stable, widely-used implementation of Python, ECMAScript, Ruby, and PHP has at least one compiler, many even have more than one (e.g. PyPy, V8, SpiderMonkey, Squirrelfish Extreme, Chakra).



                      A language is an abstract set of mathematical rules and restrictions written on a piece of paper. A language is neither compiled nor interpreted, a language just is. Those concepts live on different layers of abstraction; if English were a typed language, the term "compiled language" would be a type error.




                      I'd also be interested to know if the answer to this question would be the same for […] e.g. C.




                      There are many production-ready, stable C implementations in widespread use. Some of them may or may not be able to perform this optimization for at least some programs under at least some circumstances.



                      The C Language Specification does neither require nor forbid this kind of optimization, so any specification-conforming C implementation would be allowed to, but not required, to perform this optimization.







                      share|improve this answer













                      share|improve this answer




                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Sep 29 at 7:28









                      Jörg W MittagJörg W Mittag

                      308k64 gold badges378 silver badges573 bronze badges




                      308k64 gold badges378 silver badges573 bronze badges















                      • Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis. And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types (or maybe the optimization only applies to the scenarios where the types can be clearly inferred?). In Python, type hints are just annotations and runtime checking is not enforced at all (see more details).

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 13:59












                      • "Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis" – dis.dis will only show you the optimizations that the Python-to-bytecode compiler makes, which is actually a pretty simple and "stupid" compiler that performs almost no optimizations. Also, it is a static ahead-of-time compiler, so it has to contend with all the limitations the Halting Problems and Rice's Theorem entail. However, in PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, that bytecode is usually compiled further to native machine code, and that compiler is much more sophisticated.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:05






                      • 1





                        "And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types" – What makes you think an optimizer doesn't have knowledge of runtime types? The whole reason why many modern high-performance language execution engines delay compilation until runtime is precisely because that way the optimizer has access not only to runtime types, but also to runtime profiling data, data access patterns, branch statistics, etc. Even further, a compiler that is capable of de-optimization (such as HotSpot's) can make speculative unsafe optimizations and just remove them again when …

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:06







                      • 1





                        … it realizes that its speculation was wrong. I.e. it could remove the common subexpression under the assumption that it doesn't have any side-effects even if it can't prove that it doesn't have side-effects, but monitor it for side-effects, and when it detects a side-effect, it just recompiles that particular piece of code without CSE.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:08












                      • Unlike statically-typed languages such as C / Java, Python is dynamically typed so inferring runtime types is a fairly complicated task. I just checked that it is possible for the RPython subset of Python which imposes more restrictions to allow type inferences.

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 14:18

















                      • Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis. And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types (or maybe the optimization only applies to the scenarios where the types can be clearly inferred?). In Python, type hints are just annotations and runtime checking is not enforced at all (see more details).

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 13:59












                      • "Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis" – dis.dis will only show you the optimizations that the Python-to-bytecode compiler makes, which is actually a pretty simple and "stupid" compiler that performs almost no optimizations. Also, it is a static ahead-of-time compiler, so it has to contend with all the limitations the Halting Problems and Rice's Theorem entail. However, in PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, that bytecode is usually compiled further to native machine code, and that compiler is much more sophisticated.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:05






                      • 1





                        "And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types" – What makes you think an optimizer doesn't have knowledge of runtime types? The whole reason why many modern high-performance language execution engines delay compilation until runtime is precisely because that way the optimizer has access not only to runtime types, but also to runtime profiling data, data access patterns, branch statistics, etc. Even further, a compiler that is capable of de-optimization (such as HotSpot's) can make speculative unsafe optimizations and just remove them again when …

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:06







                      • 1





                        … it realizes that its speculation was wrong. I.e. it could remove the common subexpression under the assumption that it doesn't have any side-effects even if it can't prove that it doesn't have side-effects, but monitor it for side-effects, and when it detects a side-effect, it just recompiles that particular piece of code without CSE.

                        – Jörg W Mittag
                        Sep 29 at 14:08












                      • Unlike statically-typed languages such as C / Java, Python is dynamically typed so inferring runtime types is a fairly complicated task. I just checked that it is possible for the RPython subset of Python which imposes more restrictions to allow type inferences.

                        – GZ0
                        Sep 29 at 14:18
















                      Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis. And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types (or maybe the optimization only applies to the scenarios where the types can be clearly inferred?). In Python, type hints are just annotations and runtime checking is not enforced at all (see more details).

                      – GZ0
                      Sep 29 at 13:59






                      Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis. And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types (or maybe the optimization only applies to the scenarios where the types can be clearly inferred?). In Python, type hints are just annotations and runtime checking is not enforced at all (see more details).

                      – GZ0
                      Sep 29 at 13:59














                      "Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis" – dis.dis will only show you the optimizations that the Python-to-bytecode compiler makes, which is actually a pretty simple and "stupid" compiler that performs almost no optimizations. Also, it is a static ahead-of-time compiler, so it has to contend with all the limitations the Halting Problems and Rice's Theorem entail. However, in PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, that bytecode is usually compiled further to native machine code, and that compiler is much more sophisticated.

                      – Jörg W Mittag
                      Sep 29 at 14:05





                      "Are there any references for the PyPy optimization? I cannot see it by using dis.dis" – dis.dis will only show you the optimizations that the Python-to-bytecode compiler makes, which is actually a pretty simple and "stupid" compiler that performs almost no optimizations. Also, it is a static ahead-of-time compiler, so it has to contend with all the limitations the Halting Problems and Rice's Theorem entail. However, in PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, that bytecode is usually compiled further to native machine code, and that compiler is much more sophisticated.

                      – Jörg W Mittag
                      Sep 29 at 14:05




                      1




                      1





                      "And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types" – What makes you think an optimizer doesn't have knowledge of runtime types? The whole reason why many modern high-performance language execution engines delay compilation until runtime is precisely because that way the optimizer has access not only to runtime types, but also to runtime profiling data, data access patterns, branch statistics, etc. Even further, a compiler that is capable of de-optimization (such as HotSpot's) can make speculative unsafe optimizations and just remove them again when …

                      – Jörg W Mittag
                      Sep 29 at 14:06






                      "And I wonder how that could be done in Python without the knowledge of runtime types" – What makes you think an optimizer doesn't have knowledge of runtime types? The whole reason why many modern high-performance language execution engines delay compilation until runtime is precisely because that way the optimizer has access not only to runtime types, but also to runtime profiling data, data access patterns, branch statistics, etc. Even further, a compiler that is capable of de-optimization (such as HotSpot's) can make speculative unsafe optimizations and just remove them again when …

                      – Jörg W Mittag
                      Sep 29 at 14:06





                      1




                      1





                      … it realizes that its speculation was wrong. I.e. it could remove the common subexpression under the assumption that it doesn't have any side-effects even if it can't prove that it doesn't have side-effects, but monitor it for side-effects, and when it detects a side-effect, it just recompiles that particular piece of code without CSE.

                      – Jörg W Mittag
                      Sep 29 at 14:08






                      … it realizes that its speculation was wrong. I.e. it could remove the common subexpression under the assumption that it doesn't have any side-effects even if it can't prove that it doesn't have side-effects, but monitor it for side-effects, and when it detects a side-effect, it just recompiles that particular piece of code without CSE.

                      – Jörg W Mittag
                      Sep 29 at 14:08














                      Unlike statically-typed languages such as C / Java, Python is dynamically typed so inferring runtime types is a fairly complicated task. I just checked that it is possible for the RPython subset of Python which imposes more restrictions to allow type inferences.

                      – GZ0
                      Sep 29 at 14:18





                      Unlike statically-typed languages such as C / Java, Python is dynamically typed so inferring runtime types is a fairly complicated task. I just checked that it is possible for the RPython subset of Python which imposes more restrictions to allow type inferences.

                      – GZ0
                      Sep 29 at 14:18











                      1



















                      No, python doesn't do that by default. f you need python to preserve the result of a certain calculation for you, you need to implicitly tell python to do that, one way to do this would be by defining a function and using functools.lru_cache docs:



                      from functools import lru_cache

                      @lru_cache(maxsize=32)
                      def add3(x,y,z):
                      return x + y + z

                      x=1
                      y=2
                      z=3
                      r = (add3(x,y,z)+1) + (add3(x,y,z)+2)





                      share|improve this answer



























                      • "No, python doesn't do that by default since it would use up too much memory ..." - Do you have a source for your claim that memory usage is the reason? Because honestly, I'm pretty sceptical of that.

                        – marcelm
                        Sep 28 at 23:30






                      • 2





                        The reason is not that the common subexpression elimination “would use up too much memory”; it is that the transformation is not sound in Python because the language is too dynamic.

                        – wchargin
                        Sep 28 at 23:30











                      • @marcelm sorry.

                        – yukashima huksay
                        Sep 29 at 4:53















                      1



















                      No, python doesn't do that by default. f you need python to preserve the result of a certain calculation for you, you need to implicitly tell python to do that, one way to do this would be by defining a function and using functools.lru_cache docs:



                      from functools import lru_cache

                      @lru_cache(maxsize=32)
                      def add3(x,y,z):
                      return x + y + z

                      x=1
                      y=2
                      z=3
                      r = (add3(x,y,z)+1) + (add3(x,y,z)+2)





                      share|improve this answer



























                      • "No, python doesn't do that by default since it would use up too much memory ..." - Do you have a source for your claim that memory usage is the reason? Because honestly, I'm pretty sceptical of that.

                        – marcelm
                        Sep 28 at 23:30






                      • 2





                        The reason is not that the common subexpression elimination “would use up too much memory”; it is that the transformation is not sound in Python because the language is too dynamic.

                        – wchargin
                        Sep 28 at 23:30











                      • @marcelm sorry.

                        – yukashima huksay
                        Sep 29 at 4:53













                      1















                      1











                      1









                      No, python doesn't do that by default. f you need python to preserve the result of a certain calculation for you, you need to implicitly tell python to do that, one way to do this would be by defining a function and using functools.lru_cache docs:



                      from functools import lru_cache

                      @lru_cache(maxsize=32)
                      def add3(x,y,z):
                      return x + y + z

                      x=1
                      y=2
                      z=3
                      r = (add3(x,y,z)+1) + (add3(x,y,z)+2)





                      share|improve this answer
















                      No, python doesn't do that by default. f you need python to preserve the result of a certain calculation for you, you need to implicitly tell python to do that, one way to do this would be by defining a function and using functools.lru_cache docs:



                      from functools import lru_cache

                      @lru_cache(maxsize=32)
                      def add3(x,y,z):
                      return x + y + z

                      x=1
                      y=2
                      z=3
                      r = (add3(x,y,z)+1) + (add3(x,y,z)+2)






                      share|improve this answer















                      share|improve this answer




                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Sep 29 at 4:48

























                      answered Sep 28 at 13:53









                      yukashima huksayyukashima huksay

                      2,3552 gold badges17 silver badges39 bronze badges




                      2,3552 gold badges17 silver badges39 bronze badges















                      • "No, python doesn't do that by default since it would use up too much memory ..." - Do you have a source for your claim that memory usage is the reason? Because honestly, I'm pretty sceptical of that.

                        – marcelm
                        Sep 28 at 23:30






                      • 2





                        The reason is not that the common subexpression elimination “would use up too much memory”; it is that the transformation is not sound in Python because the language is too dynamic.

                        – wchargin
                        Sep 28 at 23:30











                      • @marcelm sorry.

                        – yukashima huksay
                        Sep 29 at 4:53

















                      • "No, python doesn't do that by default since it would use up too much memory ..." - Do you have a source for your claim that memory usage is the reason? Because honestly, I'm pretty sceptical of that.

                        – marcelm
                        Sep 28 at 23:30






                      • 2





                        The reason is not that the common subexpression elimination “would use up too much memory”; it is that the transformation is not sound in Python because the language is too dynamic.

                        – wchargin
                        Sep 28 at 23:30











                      • @marcelm sorry.

                        – yukashima huksay
                        Sep 29 at 4:53
















                      "No, python doesn't do that by default since it would use up too much memory ..." - Do you have a source for your claim that memory usage is the reason? Because honestly, I'm pretty sceptical of that.

                      – marcelm
                      Sep 28 at 23:30





                      "No, python doesn't do that by default since it would use up too much memory ..." - Do you have a source for your claim that memory usage is the reason? Because honestly, I'm pretty sceptical of that.

                      – marcelm
                      Sep 28 at 23:30




                      2




                      2





                      The reason is not that the common subexpression elimination “would use up too much memory”; it is that the transformation is not sound in Python because the language is too dynamic.

                      – wchargin
                      Sep 28 at 23:30





                      The reason is not that the common subexpression elimination “would use up too much memory”; it is that the transformation is not sound in Python because the language is too dynamic.

                      – wchargin
                      Sep 28 at 23:30













                      @marcelm sorry.

                      – yukashima huksay
                      Sep 29 at 4:53





                      @marcelm sorry.

                      – yukashima huksay
                      Sep 29 at 4:53


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f58146860%2fdoes-python-reuse-repeated-calculation-results%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown









                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                      Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                      Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?