On 15/02/12 21:09, Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hello Mark,
First, I've back-ported your patch on python 3.2.2 (which was relatively
easy). Almost all tests pass, and those that don't are always failing on
my machine if I remember. The patch can be found here: http://goo.gl/nSzzY
Then, I compared me
Hello Mark,
First, I've back-ported your patch on python 3.2.2 (which was relatively
easy). Almost all tests pass, and those that don't are always failing on
my machine if I remember. The patch can be found here: http://goo.gl/nSzzY
Then, I compared memory footprint of one of our applications (
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:31:38 +
Mark Shannon wrote:
> Note that the json benchmark is unstable and should be ignored.
Can you elaborate? If it's unstable it should be fixed, not ignored :)
Also, there are two different mako results in your message, which one
is the right one?
Thanks
Antoine
Any opinions on my new dictionary implementation?
I'm happy to take silence on the PEP as tacit approval,
but the code definitely needs reviewing.
Issue:
http://bugs.python.org/issue13903
PEP:
https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/cpython_new_dict/src/6c4d5d9dfc6d/pep-new-dict.txt
Repository
https
francis wrote:
Hi Mark,
Bah... typo in assert statement.
My fault for not testing the debug build (release build worked fine).
Both builds working now.
Yeah, now is working and passes all tests also on my machine.
I've tried to run the test suite but I'm getting a SyntaxError:
(may be you know
Hi Mark,
Bah... typo in assert statement.
My fault for not testing the debug build (release build worked fine).
Both builds working now.
Yeah, now is working and passes all tests also on my machine.
I've tried to run the test suite but I'm getting a SyntaxError:
(may be you know it's just the f
On 08/02/2012 15:16, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi,
Version 2 is now available.
Version 2 makes as few changes to tunable constants as possible, and
generally does not change iteration order (so repr() is unchanged).
All tests pass (the only changes to tests are for sys.getsizeof() ).
Repository: h
francis wrote:
Hi Mark,
I've just cloned :
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/cpython_new_dict
Do please try it on your machine(s).
that's a:
Linux random 3.1.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 10 05:01:58 UTC 2012 x86_64
GNU/Linux
and I'm getting:
gcc -pthread -c -Wno-unused-resu
Hi Mark,
I've just cloned :
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/cpython_new_dict
Do please try it on your machine(s).
that's a:
Linux random 3.1.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 10 05:01:58 UTC 2012 x86_64
GNU/Linux
and I'm getting:
gcc -pthread -c -Wno-unused-result -g -O0 -Wall
Just more info: changeset is: 74843:20702d1acf17
Cheers,
francis
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archiv
Hi,
Version 2 is now available.
Version 2 makes as few changes to tunable constants as possible, and
generally does not change iteration order (so repr() is unchanged).
All tests pass (the only changes to tests are for sys.getsizeof() ).
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/cpython_n
Just a quick update.
I've been analysing and profile the behaviour of my new dict and messing
about with various implementation options.
I've settled on a new implementation.
Its the same basic idea, but with better locality of reference for
unshared keys.
Guido asked:
> Another question:
Am 02.02.2012 12:30, schrieb Chris Withers:
> On 01/02/2012 17:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Another question: a common pattern is to use (immutable) class
>> variables as default values for instance variables, and only set the
>> instance variables once they need to be different. Does such a clas
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:50:55 -0800
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Hans Mulder wrote:
> > On 30/01/12 00:30:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark Shannon wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >>> Antoine is right. It is a reorganisation of th
On 02/02/2012 11:30, Chris Withers wrote:
On 01/02/2012 17:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Another question: a common pattern is to use (immutable) class
variables as default values for instance variables, and only set the
instance variables once they need to be different. Does such a class
benefit
On 01/02/2012 17:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Another question: a common pattern is to use (immutable) class
variables as default values for instance variables, and only set the
instance variables once they need to be different. Does such a class
benefit from your improvement?
A less common patt
Hey, I like this! It's a subtle encouragement for developers to
initialize all their instance variables in their __init__ or __new__
method, with a (modest) performance improvement for a carrot. (Though
I have to admit I have no idea how you do it. Wouldn't the set of dict
keys be different while
Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
> Hey, I like this! It's a subtle encouragement for developers to
> initialize all their instance variables in their __init__ or __new__
> method, with a (modest) performance improvement for a carrot. (Though
> I have to admit I have no idea how you do it. Wou
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Hans Mulder wrote:
> On 30/01/12 00:30:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> Mark Shannon wrote:
>>>
>>> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> Antoine is right. It is a reorganisation of the dict, plus a couple of
>>> changes to typeobject.c and object.c to ensure tha
On 30/01/12 00:30:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Shannon wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
[..]
Antoine is right. It is a reorganisation of the dict, plus a couple of
changes to typeobject.c and object.c to ensure that instance
dictionaries do indeed share keys arrays.
I don't quite follow
I still have gdb 6.somthing,
would you mail me the full output please,
so I can see what the problem is.
It's done, let me know if you need more output.
Cheers,
francis
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman
Mark Shannon wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon :
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
If you're se
Matt Joiner wrote:
Mark, Good luck with getting this in, I'm also hopeful about coroutines,
maybe after pushing your dict optimization your coroutine implementation
will get more consideration.
Shush, don't say the C word or you'll put people off ;)
I'm actually not that fussed about the coro
>> Please clarify the status of that code: are you actually proposing
>> 6a21f3b35e20 for inclusion into Python as-is? If so, please post it
>> as a patch to the tracker, as it will need to be reviewed (possibly
>> with requests for further changes).
>
> I thought it already was a patch. What do I
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
Please clarify the status of that code: are you actually proposing
6a21f3b35e20 for inclusion into Python as-is? If so, pleas
francis wrote:
On 01/29/2012 11:31 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
It passes all the tests.
(I had to change a couple that relied on dict repr() ordering)
Hi Mark,
I've cloned the repo, build it the I've tried with ./python -m test. I
got some errors:
First in general:
340 tests OK.
2 tests failed:
> Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
> I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
> It is a little more polished than before.
Please clarify the status of that code: are you actually proposing
6a21f3b35e20 for inclusion into Python as-is? If so, please post it
as a patch
On 01/29/2012 11:31 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
It passes all the tests.
(I had to change a couple that relied on dict repr() ordering)
Hi Mark,
I've cloned the repo, build it the I've tried with ./python -m test. I
got some errors:
First in general:
340 tests OK.
2 tests failed:
test_dis te
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon :
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
If you're serious about changing
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:31:48 +
Mark Shannon wrote:
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/hotpy_new_dict
I briefly took
2012/1/29 Antoine Pitrou :
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>> 2012/1/29 Mark Shannon :
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
>> > I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
>> > It is a little more polished than before.
>
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/1/29 Mark Shannon :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
> > I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
> > It is a little more polished than before.
>
> If you're serious about changing t
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon :
> Hi,
>
> Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
> I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
> It is a little more polished than before.
If you're serious about changing the dictionary implementation, I
think you should write a PEP. It should explai
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:31:48 +
Mark Shannon wrote:
>
> Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
> I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
> It is a little more polished than before.
>
> https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/hotpy_new_dict
I briefly took a look at y
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/hotpy_new_dict
Object-oriented benchmarks use considerably less memory and are
sometimes faster (by a small am
35 matches
Mail list logo
