Bug report

Bug description:

After gh-126835 moved constant folding from AST to CFG (specifically gh-130769 for tuple folding and gh-129550 for unary/binary op folding), compiling files with large constant tuples suffers from an O(N²) slowdown.

The root cause is add_const() in Python/flowgraph.c — it does a linear scan over the consts list to find a constant's index by identity:

for (index = 0; index < PyList_GET_SIZE(consts); index++) {
    if (PyList_GET_ITEM(consts, index) == newconst) {
        break;
    }
}

Before gh-126835, large constant tuples were folded in one shot at the AST stage, so add_const was rarely called with big consts lists. After gh-130769 moved tuple folding to CFG, fold_tuple_of_constants() calls add_const() once per inner tuple — N calls × O(N) scan = O(N²).

This also affects unary/binary op folding (fold_const_unaryop, fold_const_binop) moved to CFG in gh-129550:

• (-1, -2, ..., -N) — each UNARY_NEGATIVE folded via add_const, 31.7x slower than 3.11 at N=100K
• (0+1, 0+2, ..., 0+N) — each BINARY_OP folded via add_const, 9.7x slower at N=100K

perf profiling shows add_const taking 83.76% of CPU time at N=100K.

Performance impact (N=100K):

Reproducer:

import sys, time

N = int(sys.argv[1]) if len(sys.argv) > 1 else 100000

elements = ", ".join(f"({i * 0.001:.6f}, {i * 0.002:.6f})" for i in range(N))
source = f"vertices = ({elements},)"

t0 = time.perf_counter()
code_obj = compile(source, "<test>", "exec")
t1 = time.perf_counter()
print(f"Compile time: {t1-t0:.4f}s", flush=True)

Discussion: https://discuss.python.org/t/o-n-compile-time-regression-for-large-constant-tuples-after-const-folding-moved-to-cfg/106609

CPython versions tested on:

3.14, 3.15

Operating systems tested on:

Linux

Linked PRs

• gh-146455: Fix O(N²) in add_const() after constant folding moved to CFG #146456