bpo-40222: "Zero cost" exception handling

[markshannon]

For example, this function:

def f():
    try:
        g(0)
    except:
        return "fail"

compiles as follows on main:

  2           0 SETUP_FINALLY            7 (to 16)

  3           2 LOAD_GLOBAL              0 (g)
              4 LOAD_CONST               1 (0)
              6 CALL_FUNCTION            1
              8 POP_TOP
             10 POP_BLOCK
             12 LOAD_CONST               0 (None)
             14 RETURN_VALUE

  4     >>   16 POP_TOP
             18 POP_TOP
             20 POP_TOP

  5          22 POP_EXCEPT
             24 LOAD_CONST               3 ('fail')
             26 RETURN_VALUE

with this PR it compiles as follows:

  2           0 NOP

  3           2 LOAD_GLOBAL              0 (g)
              4 LOAD_CONST               1 (0)
              6 CALL_FUNCTION            1
              8 POP_TOP
             10 LOAD_CONST               0 (None)
             12 RETURN_VALUE
        >>   14 PUSH_EXC_INFO

  4          16 POP_TOP
             18 POP_TOP
             20 POP_TOP

  5          22 POP_EXCEPT
             24 LOAD_CONST               2 ('fail')
             26 RETURN_VALUE
        >>   28 POP_EXCEPT_AND_RERAISE
ExceptionTable:
  2 to 8 -> 14 [0]
  14 to 20 -> 28 [3] lasti

This is not quite zero-cost at the moment, as it leaves a NOPs for each try, and possibly a few other.

Removing NOPs that are on a line by themselves will require changes to the line number table, which has nothing to do with exception handling and I don't want to mix the two PRs.

Although the code is slightly longer overall, there is less work done on the non-exceptional path, one NOP versus a SETUP_FINALLY and POP_BLOCK.

Not only is there a reduction in work done in the bytecode, but in the size of frames is reduced a lot:

def frame_size():
    return sys.getsizeof(sys._getframe())

On master:

>>> frame_size()
400

with this PR:

>>> frame_size()
152

https://bugs.python.org/issue40222

[bedevere-bot]

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @markshannon for commit e1d6e1e 🤖

If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again.

[bedevere-bot]

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @markshannon for commit b92ada2 🤖

If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again.

[markshannon]

The failure on buildbot/AMD64 Arch Linux Asan PR is a pre-existing failure.
The failure on buildbot/PPC64LE Fedora Stable seems to be some sort of race condition in concurrent_futures

[pablogsal]

The failure on buildbot/AMD64 Arch Linux Asan PR is a pre-existing failure.
The failure on buildbot/PPC64LE Fedora Stable seems to be some sort of race condition in concurrent_futures

@markshannon Unfortunately the ASAN failure is legit. Check the BPO issue for more details.

[scoder]

This C-API change seems worth mentioning somewhere.

[pablogsal]

Check the discussion in https://bugs.python.org/issue40222

[Kenan7]

Just curious, how does this work? I guess the constant numbers are about 64-bit?

would love to get your explanation, thanks. @markshannon