On 15/02/12 21:09, Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hello Mark,
First, I've back-ported your patch on python 3.2.2 (which was relatively
easy). Almost all tests pass, and those that don't are always failing on
my machine if I remember. The patch can be found here: http://goo.gl/nSzzY
Then, I compared
Any opinions on my new dictionary implementation?
I'm happy to take silence on the PEP as tacit approval,
but the code definitely needs reviewing.
Issue:
http://bugs.python.org/issue13903
PEP:
https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/cpython_new_dict/src/6c4d5d9dfc6d/pep-new-dict.txt
Repository
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:31:38 +
Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org wrote:
Note that the json benchmark is unstable and should be ignored.
Can you elaborate? If it's unstable it should be fixed, not ignored :)
Also, there are two different mako results in your message, which one
is the right one?
Hello Mark,
First, I've back-ported your patch on python 3.2.2 (which was relatively
easy). Almost all tests pass, and those that don't are always failing on
my machine if I remember. The patch can be found here: http://goo.gl/nSzzY
Then, I compared memory footprint of one of our applications
francis wrote:
Hi Mark,
I've just cloned :
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/cpython_new_dict
Do please try it on your machine(s).
that's a:
Linux random 3.1.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 10 05:01:58 UTC 2012 x86_64
GNU/Linux
and I'm getting:
gcc -pthread -c
On 08/02/2012 15:16, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi,
Version 2 is now available.
Version 2 makes as few changes to tunable constants as possible, and
generally does not change iteration order (so repr() is unchanged).
All tests pass (the only changes to tests are for sys.getsizeof() ).
Repository:
Hi Mark,
Bah... typo in assert statement.
My fault for not testing the debug build (release build worked fine).
Both builds working now.
Yeah, now is working and passes all tests also on my machine.
I've tried to run the test suite but I'm getting a SyntaxError:
(may be you know it's just the
francis wrote:
Hi Mark,
Bah... typo in assert statement.
My fault for not testing the debug build (release build worked fine).
Both builds working now.
Yeah, now is working and passes all tests also on my machine.
I've tried to run the test suite but I'm getting a SyntaxError:
(may be you
Hi,
Version 2 is now available.
Version 2 makes as few changes to tunable constants as possible, and
generally does not change iteration order (so repr() is unchanged).
All tests pass (the only changes to tests are for sys.getsizeof() ).
Repository:
Just more info: changeset is: 74843:20702d1acf17
Cheers,
francis
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Hi Mark,
I've just cloned :
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/cpython_new_dict
Do please try it on your machine(s).
that's a:
Linux random 3.1.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 10 05:01:58 UTC 2012 x86_64
GNU/Linux
and I'm getting:
gcc -pthread -c -Wno-unused-result -g -O0 -Wall
On 01/02/2012 17:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Another question: a common pattern is to use (immutable) class
variables as default values for instance variables, and only set the
instance variables once they need to be different. Does such a class
benefit from your improvement?
A less common
On 02/02/2012 11:30, Chris Withers wrote:
On 01/02/2012 17:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Another question: a common pattern is to use (immutable) class
variables as default values for instance variables, and only set the
instance variables once they need to be different. Does such a class
benefit
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:50:55 -0800
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Hans Mulder han...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 30/01/12 00:30:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Shannon wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
[..]
Antoine is right. It is a reorganisation
Am 02.02.2012 12:30, schrieb Chris Withers:
On 01/02/2012 17:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Another question: a common pattern is to use (immutable) class
variables as default values for instance variables, and only set the
instance variables once they need to be different. Does such a class
Just a quick update.
I've been analysing and profile the behaviour of my new dict and messing
about with various implementation options.
I've settled on a new implementation.
Its the same basic idea, but with better locality of reference for
unshared keys.
Guido asked:
Another question:
On 30/01/12 00:30:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Shannon wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
[..]
Antoine is right. It is a reorganisation of the dict, plus a couple of
changes to typeobject.c and object.c to ensure that instance
dictionaries do indeed share keys arrays.
I don't quite follow
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Hans Mulder han...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 30/01/12 00:30:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Shannon wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
[..]
Antoine is right. It is a reorganisation of the dict, plus a couple of
changes to typeobject.c and object.c to ensure that
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org writes:
Hey, I like this! It's a subtle encouragement for developers to
initialize all their instance variables in their __init__ or __new__
method, with a (modest) performance improvement for a carrot. (Though
I have to admit I have no idea how you do it.
Hey, I like this! It's a subtle encouragement for developers to
initialize all their instance variables in their __init__ or __new__
method, with a (modest) performance improvement for a carrot. (Though
I have to admit I have no idea how you do it. Wouldn't the set of dict
keys be different while
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/hotpy_new_dict
Object-oriented benchmarks use considerably less memory and are
sometimes faster (by a small
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:31:48 +
Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org wrote:
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/hotpy_new_dict
I briefly took a
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org:
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
If you're serious about changing the dictionary implementation, I
think you should write a PEP. It
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org:
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
If you're
2012/1/29 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org:
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:31:48 +
Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org wrote:
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
https://bitbucket.org/markshannon/hotpy_new_dict
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org:
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
On 01/29/2012 11:31 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
It passes all the tests.
(I had to change a couple that relied on dict repr() ordering)
Hi Mark,
I've cloned the repo, build it the I've tried with ./python -m test. I
got some errors:
First in general:
340 tests OK.
2 tests failed:
test_dis
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
Please clarify the status of that code: are you actually proposing
6a21f3b35e20 for inclusion into Python as-is? If so, please post it
as a patch
francis wrote:
On 01/29/2012 11:31 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
It passes all the tests.
(I had to change a couple that relied on dict repr() ordering)
Hi Mark,
I've cloned the repo, build it the I've tried with ./python -m test. I
got some errors:
First in general:
340 tests OK.
2 tests
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more polished than before.
Please clarify the status of that code: are you actually proposing
6a21f3b35e20 for inclusion into Python as-is? If so,
Please clarify the status of that code: are you actually proposing
6a21f3b35e20 for inclusion into Python as-is? If so, please post it
as a patch to the tracker, as it will need to be reviewed (possibly
with requests for further changes).
I thought it already was a patch. What do I need to
Matt Joiner wrote:
Mark, Good luck with getting this in, I'm also hopeful about coroutines,
maybe after pushing your dict optimization your coroutine implementation
will get more consideration.
Shush, don't say the C word or you'll put people off ;)
I'm actually not that fussed about the
Mark Shannon wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:56:11 -0500
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2012/1/29 Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org:
Hi,
Now that issue 13703 has been largely settled,
I want to propose my new dictionary implementation again.
It is a little more
I still have gdb 6.somthing,
would you mail me the full output please,
so I can see what the problem is.
It's done, let me know if you need more output.
Cheers,
francis
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
35 matches
Mail list logo
