Hello, On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:45:22 +0300 Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote:
[] > > $ ./run-bench-tests bench/bytealloc* > > bench/bytealloc: > > 3.333s (+00.00%) bench/bytealloc-1-bytes_n.py > > 11.244s (+237.35%) bench/bytealloc-2-repeat.py > > If the performance of creating an immutable array of n zero bytes is > important in MicroPython, it is worth to optimize b"\0" * n. No matter how you optimize calloc + something, it's always slower than just calloc. > For now CPython is the main implementation of Python 3 Indeed, and it already has bytes(N). So, perhaps nothing should be done about it except leaving it alone. Perhaps, more discussion should go into whether there's need for .iterbytes() if there's [i:i+1] already. (I personally skip that, as I find [i:i+1] perfectly ok, and while I can't understand how people may be not ok with it up to wanting something more, I leave such possibility). > and bytes(n) > is slower than b"\0" * n in CPython. -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
