mark florisson, 06.10.2011 11:45:
On 6 October 2011 01:05, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I'm not sure what the overhead is, if any, in calling function pointers vs.
actually linking things together at the C level (which is essentially the
same idea, but perhaps addresses are resolved at library load ti
2011/10/7 Vitja Makarov :
> 2011/10/7 Stefan Behnel :
>> Vitja Makarov, 06.10.2011 23:12:
>>>
>>> Here is small comparison on compiling urllib.py with cython:
>>>
>>> ((e8527c5...)) vitja@mchome:~/work/cython-vitek-git/zzz$ time python
>>> ../cython.py urllib.py
>>>
>>> real 0m1.699s
>>> user
2011/10/7 Stefan Behnel :
> Vitja Makarov, 06.10.2011 23:12:
>>
>> Here is small comparison on compiling urllib.py with cython:
>>
>> ((e8527c5...)) vitja@mchome:~/work/cython-vitek-git/zzz$ time python
>> ../cython.py urllib.py
>>
>> real 0m1.699s
>> user 0m1.650s
>> sys 0m0.040s
>> (mas
Vitja Makarov, 06.10.2011 23:12:
Here is small comparison on compiling urllib.py with cython:
((e8527c5...)) vitja@mchome:~/work/cython-vitek-git/zzz$ time python
../cython.py urllib.py
real0m1.699s
user0m1.650s
sys 0m0.040s
(master) vitja@mchome:~/work/cython-vitek-git/zzz$ time py
2011/10/7 Vitja Makarov :
> 2011/10/7 mark florisson :
>> On 6 October 2011 21:56, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>> 2011/10/6 mark florisson :
On 6 October 2011 07:46, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 05.10.2011 15:53:
>>
>> On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>>
2011/10/7 mark florisson :
> On 6 October 2011 21:56, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2011/10/6 mark florisson :
>>> On 6 October 2011 07:46, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 05.10.2011 15:53:
>
> On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:1
On 6 October 2011 21:56, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/10/6 mark florisson :
>> On 6 October 2011 07:46, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> mark florisson, 05.10.2011 15:53:
On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
>>
>> Another issue is th
2011/10/6 mark florisson :
> On 6 October 2011 07:46, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 05.10.2011 15:53:
>>>
>>> On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
>
> Another issue is that Cython compile time is increasing with the
> addit
On 6 October 2011 07:46, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 05.10.2011 15:53:
>>
>> On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
Another issue is that Cython compile time is increasing with the
addition of control flow and cython utilit
On 6 October 2011 01:05, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2011, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 5 October 2011 01:46, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM, mark florisson
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hey,
>> >>
>> >> I briefly mentioned something about this in a pul
mark florisson, 05.10.2011 15:53:
On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
Another issue is that Cython compile time is increasing with the
addition of control flow and cython utilities. If you use fused types
you're also going to combinatorially add more
On Wednesday, October 5, 2011, mark florisson wrote:
> On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel >
> wrote:
> > mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
> >>
> >> So I propose that after fused types gets merged we try to move as many
> >> utility codes as possible to their utility code files (unless they ar
On Wednesday, October 5, 2011, mark florisson wrote:
> On 5 October 2011 01:46, Robert Bradshaw
> >
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM, mark florisson
> > > wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> I briefly mentioned something about this in a pull request, but maybe
> >> it deserves some actual discu
On 5 October 2011 14:54, mark florisson wrote:
> On 5 October 2011 08:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
So I propose that after fused types gets merged we try to move as many
utility codes as p
On 5 October 2011 01:46, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I briefly mentioned something about this in a pull request, but maybe
>> it deserves some actual discussion on the ML.
>>
>> So I propose that after fused types gets merged we t
On 5 October 2011 08:38, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
>>>
>>> So I propose that after fused types gets merged we try to move as many
>>> utility codes as possible to their utility code files (unless they are
>>
On 5 October 2011 08:16, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
>>
>> So I propose that after fused types gets merged we try to move as many
>> utility codes as possible to their utility code files (unless they are
>> used in pending pull requests or other branches). Preferably t
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
>>
>> So I propose that after fused types gets merged we try to move as many
>> utility codes as possible to their utility code files (unless they are
>> used in pending pull requests or other branches). Pref
mark florisson, 04.10.2011 23:19:
So I propose that after fused types gets merged we try to move as many
utility codes as possible to their utility code files (unless they are
used in pending pull requests or other branches). Preferably this will
be done in one or a few commits. How should we spl
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I briefly mentioned something about this in a pull request, but maybe
> it deserves some actual discussion on the ML.
>
> So I propose that after fused types gets merged we try to move as many
> utility codes as possible to their uti
20 matches
Mail list logo
