Hi,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 15:32, eat wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:29, eat wrote:
> >> > Hi Robert,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:16
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:22, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Here's the problem: for Ubuntu, we've had to disable the building of the numpy
> documentation package, because its dependencies violate Ubuntu policy. Numpy
> is in our "main" archive but the documentation depends on python-matplotlib,
> whic
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 15:32, eat wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:29, eat wrote:
> >> > Hi Robert,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rob
to, 2011-02-10 kello 12:22 -0500, Barry Warsaw kirjoitti:
[clip: Ubuntu cannot put matplotlib needed by Numpy docs into main]
> This lets me get through the build of the docs without the dependency on
> matplotlib, and a cursory look at the documentation looks pretty good.
>
> I'm inclined to prop
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>
>> Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:16:12 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
>> [clip]
>> > One thing that might be worthwhile is to make
>> > implementations of sum() and cumsum() that avoid the ufunc machi
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 15:32, eat wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:29, eat wrote:
>> > Hi Robert,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Robert Kern
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:53, eat wrot
I hope this message is on-topic for this mailing list!
I'm working on the packaging for python-numpy 1.5 in the next version of
Ubuntu (11.04 - Natty), and I'm hitting an issue that I'm hoping you can help
me with.
For reference, the two relevant bugs are:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour
Hi Robert,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:29, eat wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:53, eat wrote:
> >> > Thanks Chuck,
> >> >
> >> > for replying. But don
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:16:12 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
> [clip]
> > One thing that might be worthwhile is to make
> > implementations of sum() and cumsum() that avoid the ufunc machinery and
> > do their iterations more quickly, at least for
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:51, Joshua Holbrook wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why not just implement sum() using
> dot() and ones() ?
You can't do everything that sum() does with just dot() and ones().
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harml
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:29, eat wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:53, eat wrote:
>> > Thanks Chuck,
>> >
>> > for replying. But don't you still feel very odd that dot outperforms sum
>> > in
>> > your machine? Just to
Maybe I'm missing something, but why not just implement sum() using
dot() and ones() ?
--Josh
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:38:52 +0200, eat wrote:
> [clip]
>> I hope so. Please suggest if there's anything that I can do to further
>> advance thi
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:38:52 +0200, eat wrote:
[clip]
> I hope so. Please suggest if there's anything that I can do to further
> advance this. (My C skills are allready bit rusty, but at any higher
> level I'll try my best to contribute).
If someone wants to try to improve the situation, here's a
Hi Pauli,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:16:12 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
> [clip]
> > One thing that might be worthwhile is to make
> > implementations of sum() and cumsum() that avoid the ufunc machinery and
> > do their iterations more quickly, at
Hi Robert,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:53, eat wrote:
> > Thanks Chuck,
> >
> > for replying. But don't you still feel very odd that dot outperforms sum
> in
> > your machine? Just to get it simply; why sum can't outperform dot?
> Whatever
>
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:16:12 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
[clip]
> One thing that might be worthwhile is to make
> implementations of sum() and cumsum() that avoid the ufunc machinery and
> do their iterations more quickly, at least for some common combinations
> of dtype and contiguity.
I wonder what i
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:53, eat wrote:
> Thanks Chuck,
>
> for replying. But don't you still feel very odd that dot outperforms sum in
> your machine? Just to get it simply; why sum can't outperform dot? Whatever
> architecture (computer, cache) you have, it don't make any sense at all that
> w
Thanks Chuck,
for replying. But don't you still feel very odd that dot outperforms sum in
your machine? Just to get it simply; why sum can't outperform dot? Whatever
architecture (computer, cache) you have, it don't make any sense at all that
when performing significantly less instructions, you'll
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM, David wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in npy3_compat.h, one function simple_capsule_dtor is defined as static
>> but non-inline. AFAIK, there is no reason not to put inline (if
>> supported by the compiler of c
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:29 AM, eat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Observing following performance:
> In []: m= 1e5
> In []: n= 1e2
> In []: o= ones(n)
> In []: M= randn(m, n)
> In []: timeit M.sum(1)
> 10 loops, best of 3: 38.3 ms per loop
> In []: timeit dot(M, o)
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.1 ms per loop
>
>
Hi,
Observing following performance:
In []: m= 1e5
In []: n= 1e2
In []: o= ones(n)
In []: M= randn(m, n)
In []: timeit M.sum(1)
10 loops, best of 3: 38.3 ms per loop
In []: timeit dot(M, o)
10 loops, best of 3: 21.1 ms per loop
In []: m= 1e2
In []: n= 1e5
In []: o= ones(n)
In []: M= randn(m, n)
I
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:30:37 +0900, David wrote:
[clip]
> Following recent release of waf 1.6 and its adoption by the samba
> project, as well as my own work on integrating waf and bento, I have
> spent some time to build numpy with it. Although this is experimental,
> it should be possible for people
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM, David wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in npy3_compat.h, one function simple_capsule_dtor is defined as static
> but non-inline. AFAIK, there is no reason not to put inline (if
> supported by the compiler of course) for a static function defined in a
> header. Unless I hear someo
On 02/10/2011 04:45 PM, Sebastien Binet wrote:
> David,
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:30:37 +0900, David wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Following recent release of waf 1.6 and its adoption by the samba
>> project, as well as my own work on integrating waf and bento, I have
>> spent some time to build nump
24 matches
Mail list logo
