On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 14:25, Victor Stinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize >> Python int and long types (especially the long integers). > > Here's another one: http://code.python.org/loggerhead/users/twouters/intopt > -- integer inlining through pointer tagging trickery. In Python 2.6 it costs > 2-4% overall performance but increases integer arithmetic (in the range > [-0x40000000, 0x40000000) only) by 10-20% according to my rough measurements > (I haven't tried your benchmark yet.) I haven't ported it to 3.0 but it > should provide a bigger win there. It also breaks API compatibility in a few > ways: Py_TYPE(o) and Py_REFCNT(o) are no longer valid lvalues, and they and > Py_INCREF(o) and Py_DECREF(o) may all evaluate 'o' twice. And, worst of all, > it exposes the tagged pointers to third-party extensions, so anything not > doing typechecks with Py_TYPE(o) will likely cause buserrors. > > In retrospect, perhaps this is too controversial to be added to the list ;-) > I don't really expect this to be something CPython would want to use as-is, > although there may be use for tagged pointers in more controlled > environments (like function locals.)
You might also try sympy (http://code.google.com/p/sympy/). Calculates 10**5 decima digits of pi: pure Python integers: $ MPMATH_NOGMPY=yes ipython In [1]: from sympy import pi In [2]: %time a=pi.evalf(10**5) CPU times: user 8.56 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 8.56 s Wall time: 8.56 s gmpy integers: $ ipython In [1]: from sympy import pi In [2]: %time a=pi.evalf(10**5) CPU times: user 0.28 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.28 s Wall time: 0.28 s So with gmpy, it is 30x faster. Ondrej _______________________________________________ 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-archive.com
