On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 02:03:06AM -0400, Anne Archibald wrote:
> One way to track down this kind of problem is to look at the C code
> that's generated. Easier, I admit, with a little familiarity with C,
> but in any case code working with python variables will be obtrusively
> strewn with functio
2008/6/23 Gael Varoquaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:39:21PM -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
>> Another typo is the culprit:
>
>> In [2]:timeit do_Mandelbrot_cython()
>> 10 loops, best of 3: 53.8 ms per loop
>
>> In [3]:timeit do_Mandelbrot_cython2()
>> 10 loops, best of 3: 54 ms pe
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:39:21PM -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
> Another typo is the culprit:
> In [2]:timeit do_Mandelbrot_cython()
> 10 loops, best of 3: 53.8 ms per loop
> In [3]:timeit do_Mandelbrot_cython2()
> 10 loops, best of 3: 54 ms per loop
> This is after I put the underscore in the x_b
Gael,
Another typo is the culprit:
In [2]:timeit do_Mandelbrot_cython()
10 loops, best of 3: 53.8 ms per loop
In [3]:timeit do_Mandelbrot_cython2()
10 loops, best of 3: 54 ms per loop
This is after I put the underscore in the x_buffer declaration in
do_Mandlebrot_cython2. As it was, with no u
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 05:02:38PM -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
> The line above looks like a typo, and does not match your inline
> version. Could that be making the difference?
Thank you Eric! It was indeed a typo (the plot is nicer with the typo,
surprising, but that also explains why it didn't
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> I tried tweak my Cython code for performance by manually inlining a small
> function, and ended up with a less performant code. I must confess I
> don't really understand what is going on here. If somebody has an
> explaination, I'd be delighted. The code follows.
>
> +
I tried tweak my Cython code for performance by manually inlining a small
function, and ended up with a less performant code. I must confess I
don't really understand what is going on here. If somebody has an
explaination, I'd be delighted. The code follows.
+++
