How should we think about error-handling in concurrent programs? In single-threaded programs, we’ve mostly converged on a standard pattern, with a diverse zoo of implementations and concrete patterns. When an error occurs, it is propagated up the stack until we find a stack frame which is prepared to handle it. As we do so, we unwind the stack frames in-order, giving each frame the opportunity to clean up or destroy resources as appropriate.

For a while now, I’ve been fascinated by Z3 and by SMT solving more broadly. While on pat leave recently, I was reminded of the existence of regular-expression crossword puzzles, and allowed myself to get nerdsniped by writing a Z3-backed solver. I expected to spend perhaps an afternoon cranking out a quick solver; I ended up getting sucked into understanding and debugging Z3 performance, and learning far more about Z3 and about SMT than I expected.

While investigating the performance of the new Python 3.14 tail-calling interpreter, I learned (via this very informative comment from Sam Gross) new (to me) piece of performance trivia: Modern CPUs mostly no longer struggle to predict the bytecode-dispatch indirect jump inside a “conventional” bytecode interpreter loop. In steady-state, assuming the bytecode itself is reasonable stable, modern CPUs achieve very high accuracy predicting the dispatch, even for “vanilla” while / switch-style interpreter loops1!

About a month ago, the CPython project merged a new implementation strategy for their bytecode interpreter. The initial headline results were very impressive, showing a 10-15% performance improvement on average across a wide range of benchmarks across a variety of platforms. Unfortunately, as I will document in this post, these impressive performance gains turned out to be primarily due to inadvertently working around a regression in LLVM 19. When benchmarked against a better baseline (such GCC, clang-18, or LLVM 19 with certain tuning flags), the performance gain drops to 1-5% or so depending on the exact setup.