On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:53 AM Kevin Sheppard <kevin.k.shepp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My reading is that the first 4 are pure C, presumably using the standard > practice of inclining so as to make the tightest loop possible, and to > allow the compiler to make other optimizations. The final line is what > happens when you replace the existing ziggurat in NumPy with the new one. I > read it this way since it has both “new” and “old” with numpy. If it isn’t > this, then I’m unsure what “new” and “old” could mean in the context of > this thread. > No, these are our benchmarks of `Generator`. `numpy` is testing `RandomState`, which wasn't touched by their contribution. https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/benchmarks/benchmarks/bench_random.py#L93-L97 https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/benchmarks/benchmarks/bench_random.py#L123-L124 > I suppose camel-cdr can clarify what was actually done. > But I did run the built-in benchmark: ./runtests.py --bench > bench_random.RNG.time_normal_zig and the results are: > > -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
