[Cython] Fwd: Proposal for a common benchmark suite

[Seems like this was meant to go to this list but didn't make it there. Forwarding from python-dev] Original-Message Subject: Proposal for a common benchmark suite Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:55:19 +0200 From: DasIch Hello, As announced in my GSoC proposal I'd like to announce w

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:53 AM, mark florisson wrote: > On 29 April 2011 12:28, Pauli Virtanen wrote: >> Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:30:19 +0200, mark florisson wrote: >>> On 29 April 2011 11:03, Pauli Virtanen wrote: >> [clip] Are you planning to special-case the "real_t complex" syntax? Shooting

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:04 AM, mark florisson wrote: > On 29 April 2011 06:32, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>> mark florisson, 28.04.2011 23:29: On 28 April 2011 22:31, mark florisson wrote: > > On 28 April 2011 22:12, Rober

Re: [Cython] speed.pypy.org

2011/4/27 Stefan Behnel : > Robert Bradshaw, 27.04.2011 19:08: >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>> >>> Actually, if we want a proper history, I'd suggest a separate codespeed >>> installation somewhere. >> >> Makes sense. How many CPU-hours does it take? > > Including t

Re: [Cython] What *is* a fused type?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Greg Ewing wrote: > I seem to have missed the beginning of the discussion about this > fused type business. Is there a document somewhere describing > what a "fused type" is and what it's meant to be used for? http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/fusedtypes In sho

[Cython] What *is* a fused type?

I seem to have missed the beginning of the discussion about this fused type business. Is there a document somewhere describing what a "fused type" is and what it's meant to be used for? -- Greg ___ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http:

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:59:22 +0200, mark florisson wrote: [clip] > Hmm, indeed, it's pretty weird. I'm fine with the pairing also, although > I'm still not sure how common this case is, and if we really want to > support it. Wouldn't good old C promotion work for this? e.g. if the > type is either flo

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 29 April 2011 06:32, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> mark florisson, 28.04.2011 23:29: >>> >>> On 28 April 2011 22:31, mark florisson wrote: On 28 April 2011 22:12, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM,

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 29 April 2011 13:37, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:53:06 +0200, mark florisson wrote: > [clip] >> But if we just allow that for fused types, then couldn't we simply do >> >> ctypedef cython.fused_type(float, double) real_t >> >> cdef real_plus_one(real_t complex a): >>     real_t

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:53:06 +0200, mark florisson wrote: [clip] > But if we just allow that for fused types, then couldn't we simply do > > ctypedef cython.fused_type(float, double) real_t > > cdef real_plus_one(real_t complex a): > real_t b = a.real > return b + 1 > > ? Then you don't nee

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 04/29/2011 12:53 PM, mark florisson wrote: On 29 April 2011 12:28, Pauli Virtanen wrote: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:30:19 +0200, mark florisson wrote: On 29 April 2011 11:03, Pauli Virtanen wrote: [clip] Are you planning to special-case the "real_t complex" syntax? Shooting from the sidelines,

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 29 April 2011 12:28, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:30:19 +0200, mark florisson wrote: >> On 29 April 2011 11:03, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > [clip] >>> Are you planning to special-case the "real_t complex" syntax? Shooting >>> from the sidelines, one more generic solution might be, e

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:30:19 +0200, mark florisson wrote: > On 29 April 2011 11:03, Pauli Virtanen wrote: [clip] >> Are you planning to special-case the "real_t complex" syntax? Shooting >> from the sidelines, one more generic solution might be, e.g., > > I'm sorry, I'm not sure what syntax you are

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 29 April 2011 11:03, Pauli Virtanen wrote: > Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:23:55 +0200, mark florisson wrote: > [clip] >> Ok, branching on the type sounds fine to me. It brings one problem >> though: because you cannot declare the variables of your variable type >> (the type of say, mystruct.attrib), you

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:23:55 +0200, mark florisson wrote: [clip] > Ok, branching on the type sounds fine to me. It brings one problem > though: because you cannot declare the variables of your variable type > (the type of say, mystruct.attrib), you will need to do multiple > declarations outside of yo

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 29 April 2011 06:32, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> mark florisson, 28.04.2011 23:29: >>> >>> On 28 April 2011 22:31, mark florisson wrote: On 28 April 2011 22:12, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM,

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 28 April 2011 23:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:29 PM, mark florisson > wrote: >> On 28 April 2011 22:31, mark florisson wrote: >>> On 28 April 2011 22:12, Robert Bradshaw >>> wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM, mark florisson wrote: > So I f

Re: [Cython] Fused Types

On 28 April 2011 23:30, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:31 PM, mark florisson > wrote: >> On 28 April 2011 22:12, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM, mark florisson >>> wrote: >>> So I fixed all that, but I'm currently wondering about the propose