On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Senthil Kumaran <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:10:56PM +0530, Anand Balachandran Pillai wrote: > > I read through the entire thread. The PEP is detailed, descriptive and > > Collin has done a thorough job of discussing the pluses and minuses > > of this approach. I don't see why the PEP should not be accepted. > > The PEP is very detailed and covers a wide range of topics and > performance improvements. As you said, I see a slight increase in > performance in many different fronts, but not really things which > justify the inclusion of LLVM. > > Also, as I have no idea of LLVM at the moment, I personally don't have > much thoughts on it, except that I would like to try and see how > things work out with UnSw included. > > My personal thoughts from libraries front is, the change is going to > be transparent to the library developers, but it should be interesting > to try out UnSw included Python Interpretor. > > It was good to see MvL +1 on that. Lets jump to python-dev for more > action. :) > Antoine Pitrou just replied in the thread. And he says... :) <QUOTE> > We seek guidance from the community on > an acceptable level of increased memory usage. I think a 10-20% increase would be acceptable </QUOTE> Bingo! I don't see much chances of U.S going in to CPython in its current state. > > -- > Senthil > Children are unpredictable. You never know what inconsistency they're > going to catch you in next. > -- Franklin P. Jones > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > -- --Anand _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
