> I really don't think that is a problem. The core contributors can deal
> well with complexity in my experience. :-)
>
No no, I wasn't trying to insinuate anything like that at all. No, I
just figured that having the code generator being able to generate 4
optimizations where only one is supported
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 20:08, stefan brunthaler wrote:
> I understand all of these issues. Currently, it's not really a mess,
> but much more complicated as it needs to be for only supporting the
> inca optimization.
I really don't think that is a problem. The core contributors can deal
well with
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM, stefan brunthaler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 09:46, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Let's make one thing clear. The Python core developers need to be able
>> to reproduce your results from scratch, and that means access to the
>> templates, code generators, inputs
On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I understand that you're hesitant to just dump your current mess, and
> you want to clean it up before you show it to us. That's fine. (...) And
> remember, it doesn't need to be
> perfect (in fact perfectionism is probably a bad idea here).
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 09:46, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Let's make one thing clear. The Python core developers need to be able
> to reproduce your results from scratch, and that means access to the
> templates, code generators, inputs, and everything else you used. (Of
> course for stuff you didn'
Let's make one thing clear. The Python core developers need to be able
to reproduce your results from scratch, and that means access to the
templates, code generators, inputs, and everything else you used. (Of
course for stuff you didn't write that's already open source, all we
need is a pointer to
> But let me put this straight: as an open-source project, we are hesitant to
> accept changes which depend on closed software. Even if your optimization
> techniques would result in performance a hundred times better than what is
> currently achieved, we would still be wary to accept them.
>
> Ple
Wiadomość napisana przez stefan brunthaler w dniu 1 lut 2012, o godz. 16:55:
>> And how do you know that you really got it so right that it was the last
>> time ever
>> that you needed your generator for it?
>
> I am positive that I am going to need my code generator in the future,
> as I have s
> How many times did you regenerate this code until you got it right?
Well, honestly, I changed the code generator to "pack" the new
optimized instruction derivatives densly into the available opcodes,
so that I can make optimal use of what's there. Thus I only generated
the code twice for this pa
stefan brunthaler, 31.01.2012 22:17:
>> Well, nobody wants to review generated code.
>>
> I agree. The code generator basically uses templates that contain the
> information and a dump of the C-structure of several types to traverse
> and see which one of them implements which functions. There is r
> There is also the issue of the two test modules removed from the
> test suite.
>
Oh, I'm sorry, seems like the patch did contain too much of my
development stuff. (I did remove them before, because they were always
failing due to the instruction opcodes being changed because of
quickening; they p
Am 31.01.2012 16:46, schrieb stefan brunthaler:
>> If I read the patch correctly, most of it is auto-generated (and there
>> is probably a few spurious changes that blow it up, such as the
>> python-gdb.py file).
>
> Hm, honestly I don't know where the python-gdb.py file comes from, I
> thought it
> If I read the patch correctly, most of it is auto-generated (and there
> is probably a few spurious changes that blow it up, such as the
> python-gdb.py file).
Hm, honestly I don't know where the python-gdb.py file comes from, I
thought it came with the switch from 3.1 to the tip version I was
u
> I assume "yes" here means "yes, I'm aware" and not "yes, I'm using Python
> 2", right? And you're building on top of the existing support for threaded
> code in order to improve it?
>
Your assumption is correct, I'm sorry for the sloppiness (I was
heading out for lunch.) None of the code is 2.x c
Am 30.01.2012 20:06, schrieb stefan brunthaler:
>> Do you have a public repository for the code, so we can take a look?
>>
> I have created a patch (as Benjamin wanted) and put all of the
> resources (i.e., benchmark results and the patch itself) on my home
> page:
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~sbrunt
stefan brunthaler, 30.01.2012 20:18:
>> Well, you're aware that Python already uses threaded code where
>> available? Or are you testing against Python 2?
>>
> Yes, and I am building on that.
I assume "yes" here means "yes, I'm aware" and not "yes, I'm using Python
2", right? And you're building o
> Well, you're aware that Python already uses threaded code where
> available? Or are you testing against Python 2?
>
Yes, and I am building on that.
--stefan
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho
Hello,
> Well, you can implement threaded code on any machine that support
> indirect branch instructions. Fortunately, GCC supports the
> "label-as-values" feature, which makes it available on any machine
> that supports GCC. My optimizations themselves are portable, and I
> tested them on a Pow
Hello,
> Could you try benchmarking with the "standard" benchmarks:
> http://hg.python.org/benchmarks/
> and see what sort of performance gains you get?
>
Yeah, of course. I already did. Refere to the page listed below for
details. I did not look into the results yet, though.
> How portable is t
stefan brunthaler wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:36, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2011/11/8 stefan brunthaler :
How does that sound?
I think I can hear real patches and benchmarks most clearly.
I spent the better part of my -20% time on implementing the work as
"suggested". Please find t
2012/1/27 stefan brunthaler :
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:36, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2011/11/8 stefan brunthaler :
>>> How does that sound?
>>
>> I think I can hear real patches and benchmarks most clearly.
>>
> I spent the better part of my -20% time on implementing the work as
> "su
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:36, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2011/11/8 stefan brunthaler :
>> How does that sound?
>
> I think I can hear real patches and benchmarks most clearly.
>
I spent the better part of my -20% time on implementing the work as
"suggested". Please find the benchmarks attache
2011/11/8 stefan brunthaler :
> How does that sound?
I think I can hear real patches and benchmarks most clearly.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Hi guys,
while there is at least some interest in incorporating my
optimizations, response has still been low. I figure that the changes
are probably too much for a single big incorporation step. On a recent
flight, I thought about cutting it down to make it more easily
digestible. The basic idea
24 matches
Mail list logo
