On May 13, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Chris Colbert wrote:
> so my intitial guess that the problem was with my inability to
> properly build a dll was correct.
>
> After reading (partially) the gcc manual on compiling optimizations
> i get the following result:
>
> Starting Threads
> >>> no GIL cython
so my intitial guess that the problem was with my inability to properly
build a dll was correct.
After reading (partially) the gcc manual on compiling optimizations i get
the following result:
Starting Threads
>>> no GIL cython: Value: 1999000.00 Time: 8.076570 s
no GIL ctypes: Value: 19990
I ran another benchmark showing the opposite case: a single call to a long
running c function. The results are surprising, Cython is much much faster.
(this may be do my inability to compile an optimized dll).
Anyway, the following is the code I tested:
# Cython script (.pyx) #
cdef
On May 13, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Sebastien Binet wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 10:41:43 Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On May 13, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Sebastien Binet wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 08:35:27 Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
>>>
On May 13, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Sebastien Binet wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 08:35:27 Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On May 12, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Chris Colbert
>>>
>>> wrote:
If your making lots of rapid calls to short running
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Chris Colbert wrote:
> What follows is my 0.02, and i'm really new at these two libs so keep in
> mind I could be completely off base. I'm sure someone will jump in and
> correct my errors.
>
> I think the speed is really going to depend on the nature of your calls
Sebastian Pinet wrote:
> how would this translate into the pure-python mode ? (I couldn't seem to
> be
> able to declare the C-sqrt function using the pure-python mode of cython:
> http://wiki.cython.org/pure wasn't helpful)
You can't. Calling C functions directly is a fundamental consequence of
c
hi,
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 08:35:27 Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On May 12, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Chris Colbert
> >
> > wrote:
> >> If your making lots of rapid calls to short running functions in the
> >> C-library, then you may start to feel
On May 12, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Chris Colbert
> wrote:
>> If your making lots of rapid calls to short running functions in the
>> C-library, then you may start to feel the ctypes overhead.
>
> That's what I was afraid to hear..
Hopefully a
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Chris Colbert wrote:
> If your making lots of rapid calls to short running functions in the
> C-library, then you may start to feel the ctypes overhead.
That's what I was afraid to hear.. What I was hoping to hear is "Oh
no, ctypes is all C anyways, and will perf
I should also state, that its a helluva lot easier to get something up and
running using cython vs ctypes. So if your not doing application programming
intented for distribution, my vote goes to Cython.
I can write my whole script and have it execute to completion using Cython,
before i'm even don
What follows is my 0.02, and i'm really new at these two libs so keep in
mind I could be completely off base. I'm sure someone will jump in and
correct my errors.
I think the speed is really going to depend on the nature of your calls into
the c library. From the code i've examined, there will pro
Hello,
How fast/slow is using ctypes to talk to a C lib, compared to doing it
directly form Cython?
While debugging an issue using ctypes, I found myself writing code
that was mixing the two methods... the Cython module was passing a
pointer to my Python code, which then uses ctypes functions to
13 matches
Mail list logo
