[Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

[splitting this off into a new thread] On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:00 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: [...] > I also agree the current situation is not sustainable -- as we discussed > privately before, cythonizing numpy.core is made quite more complicated by > this. I have myself

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > [splitting this off into a new thread] > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:00 AM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > [...] > > I also agree the current situation is not sustainable -- as we discussed > > privately

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:52 AM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> [splitting this off into a new thread] > >> > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] reorganizing numpy internal extensions (was: Re: Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:52 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> [splitting this off into a new thread] >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:00 AM, David Cournapeau >> wrote: >> [...] >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Cython-based OpenMP-accelerated quartic polynomial solver

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Daπid wrote: > One idea: what about creating a "parallel numpy"? There are a few > algorithms that can benefit from parallelisation. This library would mimic > Numpy's signature, and the user would be responsible for choosing the > single

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Cython-based OpenMP-accelerated quartic polynomial solver

On 30 September 2015 at 18:20, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > - parallel code in general is not very composable. If someone is calling a > numpy operation from one thread, great, transparently using multiple > threads internally is a win. If they're exploiting some higher-level >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Fwd: Numpy for data manipulation

Thanks for comments, I've fixed the named issues. Code is python2&3 compatible, I aliased numpy and used better inversion. Specially thanks for pointing at histogram equalization - I've added example for images. Probably some other 'visual' examples would help - I'll try to invent something to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > For a long time, NumPy has supported two different ways of being compiled: > > "Separate compilation" mode: like most C projects, each .c file gets > compiled to a .o file, and then the .o files get linked

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:00:30 +0100 David Cournapeau wrote: > > Assuming one of the rumour is related to some comments I made some time > (years ?) earlier, the context was the ability to hide exported symbols. As > you know, the issue is not to build extensions w/ multiple

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Cython-based OpenMP-accelerated quartic polynomial solver

Hi all, Thanks Jon and Ryan for the suggestions. Both asanyarray() or atleast_1d() sound good. There's the technical detail that Cython needs to know the object type (e.g. in the parameters to quartic_z_array()), so I think atleast_1d() may be safer. I've taken this option for now. This

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.0 release

On Di, 2015-10-06 at 07:53 -0400, Neal Becker wrote: > 1 test failure: > > FAIL: test_blasdot.test_blasdot_used > -- > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/case.py", line 197, in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.0 release

I don't get any failures on Fedora 22. I have installed it with pip, setting my CFLAGS to "-march=core-avx-i -O2 -pipe -mtune=native" and linking against openblas. With the new Numpy, Scipy full suite shows two errors, I am sorry I didn't think of running that in the RC phase:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.0 release

lots of warning with openblas python setup.py build Running from numpy source directory. /usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/dist.py:267: UserWarning: Unknown distribution option: 'test_suite' warnings.warn(msg) blas_opt_info: blas_mkl_info: libraries mkl,vml,guide not found in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.0 release

1 test failure: FAIL: test_blasdot.test_blasdot_used -- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/case.py", line 197, in runTest self.test(*self.arg) File

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:00:30 +0100 > David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > Assuming one of the rumour is related to some comments I made some time > > (years ?) earlier, the context was the ability to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.10.0 release

Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Di, 2015-10-06 at 07:53 -0400, Neal Becker wrote: >> 1 test failure: >> >> FAIL: test_blasdot.test_blasdot_used >> -- >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:40:43 -0700 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > If you need some npy_* function it'd be much better to let us know > what it is and let us export it in an intentional way, instead of just > relying on whatever stuff we accidentally exposed? Ok, we seem to be using

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:40:43 -0700 > Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> If you need some npy_* function it'd be much better to let us know >> what it is and let us export it in an intentional way, instead of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:51 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:46 AM, David Cournapeau >> wrote: >> > The npy_ functions in npymath were designed to be

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:40:43 -0700 > > Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> If you need some npy_* function it'd be much better

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:07:13 -0700 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > And how are you getting at them? Are you just relying the way that on > ELF systems, if two libraries are loaded into the same address space > then they automatically get access to each other's symbols, even if > they

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:46 AM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > The npy_ functions in npymath were designed to be exported. Those would > stay > > that way. > > If we want to export these then I vote that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:51 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:46 AM, David Cournapeau >> wrote: >> > The npy_ functions in npymath were designed to be

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:51 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:46 AM, David Cournapeau >> wrote: >> > The npy_ functions in npymath were designed to be

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:46 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > The npy_ functions in npymath were designed to be exported. Those would stay > that way. If we want to export these then I vote that we either: - use the usual API export mechanism, or else - provide a static library

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:18 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Cournapeau >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Nathaniel

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:51 AM, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:46 AM, David Cournapeau

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Should we drop support for "one file" compilation mode?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou >> wrote: >> > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:40:43 -0700 >> > Nathaniel