On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 14 October 2011 19:31, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
> I ultimately feel things like that is more important than 100% coverage of
> the OpenMP standard. Of course, OpenMP
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Romain Guillebert, 18.10.2011 20:43:
>>
>> I'll try to do that this week, I agree that it's better to get this
>> branch merged.
>
> Cool.
Thanks!
>> Rpython isn't suitable at all for this kind of use case because you have
>> to recompile
I'm copy/pasting this message to the ML with regard to previous
discussion on cython-users and auto-vectorization (apparently my
forwarded mail got rejected).
Perhaps an approach as listed below would be easier than to generate
Fortran (and deal with the pain of linking with it, distutils
compatib
Romain Guillebert, 18.10.2011 20:43:
I'll try to do that this week, I agree that it's better to get this
branch merged.
Cool.
Rpython isn't suitable at all for this kind of use case because you have
to recompile the entire PyPy executable each time you change a library
(long compile time and
Hi
I'll try to do that this week, I agree that it's better to get this
branch merged.
Rpython isn't suitable at all for this kind of use case because you have
to recompile the entire PyPy executable each time you change a library
(long compile time and big memory consumption), loading modules is
mark florisson, 18.10.2011 18:50:
On 18 October 2011 09:06, Stefan Behnel wrote:
I know your branch isn't "ready" in the sense that it's useful for the real
world, but I'd like to find a way to get it merged, and to find a time frame
for that. Otherwise, it will just bit-rot, which is certainly
On 12 October 2011 10:24, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 11:08 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>>
>>> I wouldn't resist a builtin "channel" type in Cython (since we don't have
>>> full templating/generics, it would be the only wa
On 18 October 2011 09:06, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi Romain,
>
> I know your branch isn't "ready" in the sense that it's useful for the real
> world, but I'd like to find a way to get it merged, and to find a time frame
> for that. Otherwise, it will just bit-rot, which is certainly not what
> anyo
Hi Romain,
I know your branch isn't "ready" in the sense that it's useful for the real
world, but I'd like to find a way to get it merged, and to find a time
frame for that. Otherwise, it will just bit-rot, which is certainly not
what anyone wants. How would you judge your availability for thi
