On Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 22:28 , Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Michał Bendowski (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Friday, 13 January 2012 at 16:02 , Antonio Cuni wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Michał,
> > >
> > > On 01/12/2012 09:24 PM, Mic
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Michał Bendowski wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, 13 January 2012 at 16:02 , Antonio Cuni wrote:
>
>> Hello Michał,
>>
>> On 01/12/2012 09:24 PM, Michał Bendowski wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > Back in the summer I asked on this mailing list if there's interest in
On Friday, 13 January 2012 at 16:02 , Antonio Cuni wrote:
> Hello Michał,
>
> On 01/12/2012 09:24 PM, Michał Bendowski wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Back in the summer I asked on this mailing list if there's interest in
> > moving the JVM backend forward. Back then there was some ent
Hi Dmitrey.
Let me answer your questions one by one.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Dmitrey wrote:
> hi all,
>
> I would like to make some propositions wrt NumPy port development:
>
> 1) It would be nice to have a build and/or install parameter to available
> usage of numpypy as numpy, e.g. "
Hi Timothy,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 18:58, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
> Is the jitted code littered with cooperative "release-lock" instructions?
Yes: every compiled loop ends in (about 4-5) assembler instructions
that decrement the GIL counter and jump to some
release-and-reacquire-the-GIL code i
