On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Collin Winter wrote:
> Do note that the --track_memory option to perf.py imposes some
> overhead that interferes with the performance figures.
Thanks for the notice, without -m/--track_memory the deviation in
results is indeed much smaller.
> I'd recommend
> runni
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Mart Sõmermaa wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
> wrote:
>>> Also, I checked out wpython at head to run Unladen Swallow's
>>> benchmarks against it, but it refuses to compile with either gcc 4.0.1
>>> or 4.3.1 on Linux (fails in Python/ast.c
Hi Mart
I had some problems and little time to dedicate to wpython in the last
period, but I restarted again with it in the last month.
Currently I'm working on changing and documenting the code so that almost
every optimization can be selected. So you'll compile it enabling only the
ones you are
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
wrote:
>> Also, I checked out wpython at head to run Unladen Swallow's
>> benchmarks against it, but it refuses to compile with either gcc 4.0.1
>> or 4.3.1 on Linux (fails in Python/ast.c). I can send you the build
>> failures off-list, if you're i
On Tue, May 12, 2009 05:27 PM, Collin Winter wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
> wrote:
>> Another note. Fredrik Johansson let me note just few minutes ago that
>> I've
>> compiled my sources without PGO optimizations enabled.
>>
>> That's because I used Visual Studio Expre
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
wrote:
> Another note. Fredrik Johansson let me note just few minutes ago that I've
> compiled my sources without PGO optimizations enabled.
>
> That's because I used Visual Studio Express Edition.
>
> So another gain in performances can be obtained
On Thu, May 12, 2009 01:40PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hi Cesare,
>
> Cesare Di Mauro a-tono.com> writes:
>>
>> It was my idea too, but first I need to take a deep look at what parts
>> of code are changed from 2.6 to 3.0.
>> That's because I don't know how much work is required for this
>> "forw
Hi Cesare,
Cesare Di Mauro a-tono.com> writes:
>
> It was my idea too, but first I need to take a deep look at what parts
> of code are changed from 2.6 to 3.0.
> That's because I don't know how much work is required for this
> "forward" port.
If you have some questions or need some help, send
Hi Collin
On Mon, May 11, 2009 11:14PM, Collin Winter wrote:
> Hi Cesare,
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
> wrote:
>> At the last PyCon3 at Italy I've presented a new Python implementation,
>> which you'll find at http://code.google.com/p/wpython/
>
> Good to see some more a
On Mon, May 11, 2009 10:27PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hi Antoine
> Hi,
>
>> WPython is a re-implementation of (some parts of) Python, which drops
>> support for bytecode in favour of a wordcode-based model (where a is
>> word
>> is 16 bits wide).
>
> This is great!
> Have you planned to port in to
Hi Cesare,
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
wrote:
> At the last PyCon3 at Italy I've presented a new Python implementation,
> which you'll find at http://code.google.com/p/wpython/
Good to see some more attention on Python performance! There's quite a
bit going on in your chang
Hi,
> WPython is a re-implementation of (some parts of) Python, which drops
> support for bytecode in favour of a wordcode-based model (where a is word
> is 16 bits wide).
This is great!
Have you planned to port in to the py3k branch? Or, at least, to trunk?
Some opcode and VM optimizations have
12 matches
Mail list logo
