On 12/2/13, 12:14 AM, Dan Goodman wrote:
> Dan Goodman thesamovar.net> writes:
> ...
>> I got around 5x slower. Using numexpr 'dumbly' (i.e. just putting the
>> expression in directly) was slower than the function above, but doing a
>> hybrid between the two approaches worked well:
>>
>> def timef
Dan Goodman thesamovar.net> writes:
...
> I got around 5x slower. Using numexpr 'dumbly' (i.e. just putting the
> expression in directly) was slower than the function above, but doing a
> hybrid between the two approaches worked well:
>
> def timefunc_numexpr_smart():
> _sin_term = sin(2.0*fr
Julian Taylor googlemail.com> writes:
>
> On 01.12.2013 22:59, Dan Goodman wrote:
> > Julian Taylor googlemail.com> writes:
> >> your sin and exp calls are loop invariants, they do not depend on the
> >> loop iterable.
> >> This allows to move the expensive functions out of the loop and only
>
On 01.12.2013 22:59, Dan Goodman wrote:
> Julian Taylor googlemail.com> writes:
>> your sin and exp calls are loop invariants, they do not depend on the
>> loop iterable.
>> This allows to move the expensive functions out of the loop and only
>> leave some simple arithmetic in the body.
>
> A
Julian Taylor googlemail.com> writes:
> your sin and exp calls are loop invariants, they do not depend on the
> loop iterable.
> This allows to move the expensive functions out of the loop and only
> leave some simple arithmetic in the body.
A! I feel extremely stupid for not realising this!
On 01.12.2013 21:53, Dan Goodman wrote:
> Julian Taylor googlemail.com> writes:
>> can you show the code that is slow in numpy?
>> which version of gcc and libc are you using?
>> with gcc 4.8 it uses the glibc 2.17 sin/cos with fast-math, so there
>> should be no difference.
>
> In trying to writ
Julian Taylor googlemail.com> writes:
> can you show the code that is slow in numpy?
> which version of gcc and libc are you using?
> with gcc 4.8 it uses the glibc 2.17 sin/cos with fast-math, so there
> should be no difference.
In trying to write some simple code to demonstrate it, I realised i
On 29.11.2013 21:15, Dan Goodman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to get access to versions of ufuncs like sin and cos but
> compiled with the -ffast-math compiler switch?
>
> I recently noticed that my weave.inline code was much faster for some fairly
> simple operations than my pure numpy code,
29.11.2013 22:15, Dan Goodman kirjoitti:
> Is it possible to get access to versions of ufuncs like sin and cos but
> compiled with the -ffast-math compiler switch?
You can recompile Numpy with -ffast-math in OPT environment variable.
Caveat emptor.
--
Pauli Virtanen
Hi,
Is it possible to get access to versions of ufuncs like sin and cos but
compiled with the -ffast-math compiler switch?
I recently noticed that my weave.inline code was much faster for some fairly
simple operations than my pure numpy code, and realised after some fiddling
around that it was du
10 matches
Mail list logo