On 3 May 2011 15:17, mark florisson wrote:
> On 3 May 2011 07:47, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused about how fused types combine to
>> create further fused types. If you have something
>> like
>>
>> ctypedef struct Vector:
>> floating x
>
On 3 May 2011 16:36, Sturla Molden wrote:
> Den 03.05.2011 16:06, skrev Dag Sverre Seljebotn:
>>
>> Well, if you do something like
>>
>> ctypedef fused_type(float, double) speed_t
>> ctypedef fused_type(float, double) acceleration_t
>>
>> cdef func(speed_t x, acceleration_t y)
>>
>> then you get 4
On 3 May 2011 18:00, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:59 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 3 May 2011 00:21, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:56 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2 May 2011 18:24, Robert Brads
On 4 May 2011 01:07, Greg Ewing wrote:
> mark florisson wrote:
>
>> cdef func(floating x, floating y):
>> ...
>>
>> you get a "float, float" version, and a "double, double" version, but
>> not "float, double" or "doub
On 4 May 2011 10:24, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:07 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
>>
>> mark florisson wrote:
>>
>>> cdef func(floating x, floating y):
>>> ...
>>>
>>> you get a "float, float" version, and a &quo
On 21 April 2011 20:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
>>>>
On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 12:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 21 April 2011 20:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 12:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 12:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There
On 4 May 2011 13:39, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:30 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 12:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4 May 201
On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:41 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:39, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 01:30 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4 May 201
On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florisson wrote:
> On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> On 05/04/2011 01:41 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2011 13:39, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2011 01:
On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Look.
>>>>
On 4 May 2011 14:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4 May 2011
On 4 May 2011 14:17, mark florisson wrote:
> On 4 May 2011 14:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2011 01:
On 4 May 2011 14:23, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 02:17 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 14:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4 May 201
On 4 May 2011 18:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> Moving pull requestion discussion (https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/28)
> over here:
>
> First, I got curious why you'd have a strip off "-pthread" from CC. I'd
> think you could just execute with it with "-pthread", which seems simpler.
It
On 4 May 2011 19:44, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 07:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 18:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Moving pull requestion discussion
>>> (https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/28)
On 4 May 2011 21:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 08:07 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 19:44, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 07:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4 May 2
On 5 May 2011 21:52, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
> merged twice; all commits show up two times.
>
> It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same changes
> merged OK, but we shouldn't make this a habit. For i
On 5 May 2011 22:22, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.05.2011 21:52:
>>
>> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
>> merged twice; all commits show up two times.
>
> What (I think) happened, was that Vitja pulled in Mark's changes into his
> unreachab
On 27 May 2011 16:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/27/2011 03:54 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> [regarding the code for analysing uninitialised variables in the OpenMP
>> branch]
>>
>> dagss, 27.05.2011 10:32:
>>>
>>> I suggest this:
>>>
>>> a) Vitja and Stefan notifies Mark of any issues t
On 30 May 2011 23:31, Romain Guillebert wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've posted and article on my blog that explains what I've done during
> the community bonding period and the first week of the Google Summer of
> Code :
> http://rguillebert.blogspot.com/2011/05/cython-backend-aiming-pypy-week-1.html
>
> Che
On 31 May 2011 20:25, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is bindings performance issue valuable?
>
> $ cat bindbench.pyx
> def wo_bindings():
> pass
>
> def outer():
> def inner():
> pass
> return inner
> with_bindings = outer()
>
> $ python
import timeit
timeit.repeat('with_
On 2 June 2011 18:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> 2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Vitja Makarov
>>> wrote:
>>>> 2011/6/1 mark florisson :
>>>>>
On 2 June 2011 18:39, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
> The current implementation is
>
> ctypedef cython.fused_type(list, dict, object) fused_t
>
> This requires an addition to the grammer to allow the "call" syntax in
> a type dec
On 2 June 2011 22:16, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 18:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Vitja Makarov
>>> wrote:
>>>> 2011/6/2 Robert Bradshaw :
&
On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>
>>>>> If anyone is assigning a Cython function to an object and then using
>>>>> it they're counting on the current non-binding behavior, and
On 2 June 2011 23:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 06/02/2011 06:39 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> In looking at merging fused types, it's time to nail down the syntax.
>>> The current implementation is
>>>
>>> ctypedef cytho
On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If anyon
On 2 June 2011 23:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2 June 2011 23:13, Robert Brads
On 3 June 2011 00:04, mark florisson wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 23:59, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:45 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2011 23:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM, mark florisson
>
On 4 June 2011 12:24, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> I've tried that: https://github.com/vitek/cython/compare/master..._bindings
>
> Results are not bad: 168 failing tests for pyregr2.7 and 463 for py3
Nice, it partly duplicates work in my fusedtypes branch but I suppose
it will have to be reworked anywa
On 6 July 2011 10:01, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/7/6 Stefan Behnel :
>> Vitja Makarov, 06.07.2011 09:05:
>>>
>>> 2011/7/6 Stefan Behnel:
Stefan Behnel, 05.07.2011 10:04:
>
> Vitja Makarov, 05.07.2011 09:17:
>>
>> 2011/7/5 Stefan Behnel:
>>>
>>> Vitja Makarov, 05.
On 7 July 2011 17:09, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/7/6 Vitja Makarov :
>> 2011/7/6 Stefan Behnel :
>>> Vitja Makarov, 06.07.2011 09:05:
2011/7/6 Stefan Behnel:
>
> Stefan Behnel, 05.07.2011 10:04:
>>
>> Vitja Makarov, 05.07.2011 09:17:
>>>
>>> 2011/7/5 Stefan Behne
On 7 July 2011 22:15, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>
>
> 2011/7/7 mark florisson
>>
>> On 6 July 2011 10:01, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> > 2011/7/6 Stefan Behnel :
>> >> Vitja Makarov, 06.07.2011 09:05:
>> >>>
>> >>>
On 7 July 2011 22:39, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>
>
> 2011/7/8 mark florisson
>>
>> On 7 July 2011 22:15, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/7/7 mark florisson
>> >>
>> >> On 6 July 2011 10:01, Vitja Makarov wrote:
&
On 7 July 2011 23:13, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>
>
> 2011/7/8 mark florisson
>>
>> On 7 July 2011 22:39, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/7/8 mark florisson
>> >>
>> >> On 7 July 2011 22:15, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>
On 12 July 2011 11:46, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/7/12 Stefan Behnel
>>
>> Vitja Makarov, 12.07.2011 09:46:
>>>
>>> About cdef classes: probably it's better to
>>> transform super().method(...) into direct form, e.g. BaseClass.method(self,
>>> ...)
>>
>> Except when it doesn't work. ;)
>>
>> A
I added a test for nested parallelism with exceptions (with OpenMP
nesting explicitly enabled), however if libgomp cannot create more
threads it exits the process with exit status 1 and the message
"libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable".
This then results in a red Hudso
On 20 July 2011 02:32, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> We're long overdue for a release, and this week would be a good one
> for me to push one out. Hudson
> https://sage.math.washington.edu:8091/hudson is looking in pretty good
> shape, and though I know we've got a big pile of stuff currently in
> prog
On 20 July 2011 11:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 20.07.2011 10:51:
>>
>> On 20 July 2011 02:32, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> We're long overdue for a release, and this week would be a good one
>>> for me to push one out. Hudson
>
On 20 July 2011 11:47, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 20.07.2011 11:40:
>>
>> On 20 July 2011 11:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> mark florisson, 20.07.2011 10:51:
>>>>
>>>> On 20 July 2011 02:32, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
On 20 July 2011 18:06, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 19 July 2011 20:48, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>> On 19 July 2011 02:24, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2011/7/18 Robert Bradshaw :
> Trevor King and I discussed this quite a while back, bu
On 20 July 2011 20:04, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 20 July 2011 13:51, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 20 July 2011 18:06, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>> On 19 July 2011 20:48, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>
On 20 July 2011 21:13, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 20 July 2011 15:32, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 20 July 2011 20:04, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>> On 20 July 2011 13:51, mark florisson wrote:
>>>> On 20 July 2011 18:06, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>>&g
On 20 July 2011 21:44, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 20 July 2011 16:27, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 20 July 2011 21:13, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>> On 20 July 2011 15:32, mark florisson wrote:
>>>> On 20 July 2011 20:04, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>>>>
On 20 July 2011 23:24, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 20 July 2011 21:44, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>>> On 20 July 2011 16:27, mark florisson wrote:
>>>> On 20 July 2011 21:13, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
On 22 July 2011 04:43, Christoph Gohlke wrote:
>
>
> On 7/21/2011 4:14 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> Cython has seen an enormous amount of development since 0.14.1. If you
>> are not already using the latest version from the development
>> repository, we encourage you to try out the release can
On 22 July 2011 04:52, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> On 21 July 2011 23:43, Christoph Gohlke wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/21/2011 4:14 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> Cython has seen an enormous amount of development since 0.14.1. If you
>>> are not already using the latest version from the development
>>>
On 22 July 2011 04:43, Christoph Gohlke wrote:
>
>
> On 7/21/2011 4:14 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> Cython has seen an enormous amount of development since 0.14.1. If you
>> are not already using the latest version from the development
>> repository, we encourage you to try out the release can
For my work on the _memview branch (and also on fused types) I noticed
that UtilityCodes started weighing heavily on me in their current
form, so I wrote a little loader in the _memview branch:
https://github.com/markflorisson88/cython/commit/e13debed2db78680ec0bd8c343433a2b73bd5e64#L2R110
The id
On 22 July 2011 13:10, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 12:12:
>>
>> For my work on the _memview branch (and also on fused types) I noticed
>> that UtilityCodes started weighing heavily on me in their current
>> form, so I wrote a little lo
On 22 July 2011 13:31, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 07/22/2011 01:10 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 12:12:
>>>
>>> For my work on the _memview branch (and also on fused types) I noticed
>>> that UtilityCodes started weighi
On 22 July 2011 14:38, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 13:45:
>>
>> On 22 July 2011 13:10, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 12:12:
>>>>
>>>> For my work on the _memview branch (and also on fused
On 22 July 2011 15:54, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 15:07:
>>
>> On 22 July 2011 14:38, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 13:45:
>>>>
>>>> On 22 July 2011 13:10, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>&g
On 22 July 2011 16:08, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 22.07.2011 15:54:
>>
>> However, given that you always need to express metadata in some way (e.g.
>> for dependencies), I don't think you can do better than with two levels
>> anyway, so a third won't hurt *that* much.
>
> Actually, I ta
On 22 July 2011 16:31, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 16:11:
>>
>> On 22 July 2011 15:54, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 15:07:
>>>>
>>>> On 22 July 2011 14:38, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>&
On 22 July 2011 16:49, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 22.07.2011 16:13:
>>
>> On 22 July 2011 16:08, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> Stefan Behnel, 22.07.2011 15:54:
>>>>
>>>> However, given that you always need to express metadata in
On 22 July 2011 22:05, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:12 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> For my work on the _memview branch (and also on fused types) I noticed
>> that UtilityCodes started weighing heavily on me in their current
>> form, so I wrot
On 23 July 2011 09:37, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 22.07.2011 23:44:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22 July 2011 22:05, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri,
On 25 July 2011 12:00, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Vitja Makarov, 25.07.2011 10:25:
>>
>> 2011/7/25 Stefan Behnel:
>>>
>>> Vitja Makarov, 25.07.2011 08:41:
>>>>
>>>> 2011/7/23 Robert Bradshaw:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Ju
On 26 July 2011 08:46, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Robert Bradshaw, 26.07.2011 06:29:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:07 AM, mark florisson
>>>>
>>>> It's now 'MyUtility' an
On 26 July 2011 08:50, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 26.07.2011 07:00:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that would seriously help with moving shared C-code into
>>> cython library (.h and .so).
>>>
>>> Some things like generator class implement
On 26 July 2011 11:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 26.07.2011 10:57:
>>
>> On 26 July 2011 08:46, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Stefan Behnel
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robert
On 25 July 2011 08:08, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> There are 4 NumPy-related test errors with Python 3.1 and 3.2.
> Output with Python 3.2:
>
> ==
> ERROR: runTest (__main__.CythonRunTestCase)
> compiling (cpp) an
On 27 July 2011 18:46, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/7/27 Stefan Behnel :
>> Hi,
>>
>> quick question before raising a poll on the users mailing list.
>>
>> Would anyone mind dropping support for CPython 2.3?
>>
>> 1) it's long out of maintenance, even the last security release dates back
>> to earl
On 25 July 2011 08:03, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> There are 4 test failures with Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2.
> Output with Python 2.7:
>
> ==
> FAIL: test_nested_break_continue (line 331) (parallel.__test__)
>
On 29 July 2011 20:06, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:33 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 25 July 2011 08:03, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> wrote:
>>> There are 4 test failures with Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2.
On 29 July 2011 19:18, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2011-07-26 13:00:10 mark florisson napisał(a):
>> Unfortunately the output of the testrunner is rather useless here.
>> Could you run the tests with --no-cleanup and attach the .c and .cpp
>> files
On 30 July 2011 11:55, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned
>> issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific changeset
>> that he considered questionable), and it seems that we fou
2011/7/31 Vitja Makarov :
> I've tried openmp support with simple example:
>
> from cython.parallel cimport prange
>
> def mul(values):
> ret = 1
> for i in prange(values):
> ret *= i
> return ret
>
> And cython crashes:
>
> ((b04e040...)) vitja@vitja-laptop:~/work/cython-vitek/zzz$
On 31 July 2011 21:49, mark florisson wrote:
> 2011/7/31 Vitja Makarov :
>> I've tried openmp support with simple example:
>>
>> from cython.parallel cimport prange
>>
>> def mul(values):
>> ret = 1
>> for i in prange(values):
>>
On 1 August 2011 08:48, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 31.07.2011 22:08:
>>
>> I pushed it to release, should I rebase master on release now?
>
> Well, so far, the release branch hasn't been used and rc1 was created from
> master. All current changes in mast
On 3 August 2011 14:18, Francesc Alted wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to take advantage of the exciting new parallelizing
> capabilities recently introduced in forthcoming 0.15 version, but I'm
> having a small difficulty. When I try to compile a small demo routing
> (attached), I'm getting this err
0m0.876s
> sys 0m0.045s
>
> Which is pretty awesome, given the simplicity of Cython parallel
> implementation :)
>
> Thanks a lot Mark!
>
Glad you like it, nice speedup!
> 2011/8/3, mark florisson :
>> On 3 August 2011 14:18, Francesc Alted wrote:
>>
Is there any specific reason objects cannot coerce to structs (from
e.g. dicts?). It would be convenient for memoryviews, then you could
assign dicts (or any mapping) to items in the memoryview from Python
space. You could also have structs as argument to def functions etc.
Any objection to this ad
On 3 August 2011 19:36, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 03.08.2011 16:28:
>>>
>>> Is there any specific reason objects cannot coerce to structs (from
>>> e.g. dicts?). It would be conven
On 5 August 2011 08:53, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 3 August 2011 19:36, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>> mark florisson, 03.08.2011 16:28:
>>
On 5 August 2011 11:05, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 05.08.2011 08:53:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> my hudson sdist keeps failing with
>>>
>>> writing manifest file 'MANIFEST'
>>&g
On 15 August 2011 02:22, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> mark florisson writes:
>> On 14 August 2011 17:50, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>> mark florisson writes:
>>>> On 12 August 2011 20:23, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>&
On Monday, 15 August 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 11:42 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>
> On 15 August 2011 02:22, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
> mark florisson writes:
>
> On 14 August 2011 17:50, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
> mark florisson writes:
Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 15.08.2011 11:54: > On 08/15/2011 11:42 AM, mark
>>> florisson wrote: >> @Cython-dev: Do we merely want to update the docs, or do
>>> we want to >> initialize the GIL for either case, or only for the wit
'll try to do some tests later today
and report back.
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 15.08.2011 11:54: > On 08/15/2011 11:42 AM, mark
>> florisson wrote: >&
On 16 August 2011 11:39, mark florisson wrote:
> On 15 August 2011 23:33, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> Would it be horribly expensive to generate a better runtime error, or even
>> initialize the gil on demand? If the gil is not initialized, get the thread
>> ID o
On 16 August 2011 12:49, mark florisson wrote:
> On 16 August 2011 11:39, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 15 August 2011 23:33, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> Would it be horribly expensive to generate a better runtime error, or even
>>> initialize the
Hey,
I think I found a rather serious bug: if an error label is used in a
nogil function, it tries to build a traceback. So if the GIL is
released you will immediately segfault, and otherwise it will work
fine! Here is a snippet:
cdef int with_gil_func() except 0 with gil:
raise Exception("er
On 20 August 2011 00:34, mark florisson wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I think I found a rather serious bug: if an error label is used in a
> nogil function, it tries to build a traceback. So if the GIL is
> released you will immediately segfault, and otherwise it will work
> fine! Here is a
On 21 August 2011 12:31, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there a reason for having the two?
>
> The "uc_definition" is set to instances of "CythonUtilityCode" in
> UtilityCode.py, whereas the other is used to keep references to
> "UtilityCode" instances, but both inject their code in the same wa
On 21 August 2011 12:54, mark florisson wrote:
> On 21 August 2011 12:31, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> is there a reason for having the two?
>>
>> The "uc_definition" is set to instances of "CythonUtilityCode" in
>> Util
On 29 August 2011 19:25, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Stefan Behnel, 29.08.2011 16:33:
>>
>> here's an interesting history wrap-up of SWIG, by its original author.
>> [...]
>
> And an interesting reply:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/126425/focus=126440
>
> I didn't know clang even
On 11 September 2011 07:54, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> +1 to another release soon. Is there anything in the devel branch
> that's not ready to go out? (I was also thinking of doing a release as
> soon as fused functions and memory views got in.)
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Vitja Makarov
On 11 September 2011 11:33, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 11.09.2011 07:54:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we going to make a bugfix release?
>>>
>>> There are some critical bugs in 0.15, T725 for example.
>
> Yes, and some others.
>
>
>>> Think
On 16 September 2011 22:03, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 15.09.2011 22:33:
>>
>> See http://wiki.cython.org/ReleaseNotes-0.15.1 This is a bugfix only
>> release, we hope to get it out shortly.
>
> I've added ticket 736 as a blocker, at least until I know what it takes to
> fix it (looki
On 16 September 2011 22:20, mark florisson wrote:
> On 16 September 2011 22:03, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Robert Bradshaw, 15.09.2011 22:33:
>>>
>>> See http://wiki.cython.org/ReleaseNotes-0.15.1 This is a bugfix only
>>> release, we hope to get it out short
On 16 September 2011 22:29, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 16.09.2011 23:21:
>>
>> On 16 September 2011 22:20, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16 September 2011 22:03, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robert Bradshaw, 15.09.2011 2
On 23 September 2011 06:02, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Vitja Makarov
> wrote:
>> 2011/9/23 Robert Bradshaw :
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Vitja Makarov
>>> wrote:
2011/9/22 Robert Bradshaw :
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:20 AM, wrote:
>> Hi R
On 23 September 2011 06:02, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Vitja Makarov
> wrote:
>> 2011/9/23 Robert Bradshaw :
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Vitja Makarov
>>> wrote:
2011/9/22 Robert Bradshaw :
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:20 AM, wrote:
>> Hi R
On 30 September 2011 07:47, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/9/30 Vitja Makarov :
>> 2011/9/30 Robert Bradshaw :
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Vitja Makarov, 30.09.2011 06:41:
>
> 2011/9/28 Vitja Makarov:
>>
>> I tried to build simple plan for ongoing
On 29 September 2011 22:48, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:29 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 29 September 2011 13:13, Miguel Angel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Structs already coerce to python dicts. In the memoryview branch it
>>>>
the use of a copy method to do a struct assignment and give a
> syntax error otherwise, which would have worked nicer with Python
> semantics).
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Septe
101 - 200 of 659 matches
Mail list logo
