On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 14:25, Victor Stinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize
>> Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
>
Victor Stinner wrote:
Le Wednesday 12 November 2008 00:14:40, vous avez écrit :
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any of these
applied to 2.6?
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le Wednesday 12 November 2008 00:14:40, vous avez écrit :
>>> There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize
>>> Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
>> Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any of these
>> app
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any of these
> applied to 2.6? To me, it's clear that they are out of scope now, as
> they don't fix bugs.
There are some minor bugs in longobject.c that I think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le Wednesday 12 November 2008 00:14:40, vous avez écrit :
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to
optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Just
Le Wednesday 12 November 2008 00:14:40, vous avez écrit :
> > There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize
> > Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
>
> Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any of these
> applied to 2.6?
All optimi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to
optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any of
> There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize
> Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any of these
applied to 2.6? To me, it's clear that they are out of scope now, as
they don't fix bugs.
Re
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 14:25, Victor Stinner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize
> Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Here's another one:
http://code.python.org/loggerhead/users/twouters/intopt-- integer
inl
Victor Stinner haypocalc.com> writes:
>
> I tried to do benchmark on all these patches using pystone or pybench, but
> the
> results are inaccurate. Pystone results change with +/- 20% with the same
> code on different runs. I tried more loops (pystone 25), but it doesn't
> change anythin
Hi,
Patches
===
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
haypo: Macros for PyLong: sign, number of digits, fits in an int
http://bugs.python.org/issue4294
marketdickins
11 matches
Mail list logo
