On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Dinu Gherman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to make some performance comparisons using various tools > like CPython, Cython, PyPy and Numba as described in an exercise I've > put up here for a presentation (a tiny function generating digits of > Pi): https://gist.github.com/deeplook/4947835 > For this code PyPy 1.9 shows around 50 % of the performance of CPython. > > Christian Tismer tells me 2.0 beta 1 was much better, but I'm running > into a bug for PyPy 2.0 beta 1 already described here two months ago: > https://bugs.pypy.org/issue1350 > > So... is there any estimate for the release date of 2.0 beta 2? > > Thanks, > > Dinu > > _______________________________________________ > pypy-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
Hi Dinu, just run nightly http://buildbot.pypy.org/nightly/trunk/ ideally, also don't benchmark on OS X, it's a system that has lots of strange problems. For what is worth, you picked up a very terrible program - this program exercises long implementation, not "how fast you run python programs". A new pypy is ~30% slower than cpython, which we find reasonable (because it's runtime time), if you want faster pick gmpy. GMP however has no means of recovering from a MemoryError. How do you want to benchmark python compilers on this? Can anyone do something more sensible than just call operations on longs? Cheers, fijal _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
