(original) (raw)

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:28 AM Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer@ugent.be> wrote:
\>
\> Hello,
\>
\> I finally managed to get some real-life benchmarks for why we need a
\> faster C calling protocol (see PEPs 576, 579, 580).

Good job. But I already +1 for adding support for extension callable type.
Do you think this benchmark can be optimized more in future optimization
which is possible by PEP 580, but not 576?

\>
\> I should mention that this was done on Python 2.7.15 (SageMath is not
\> yet ported to Python 3) but I see no reason why the conclusions
\> shouldn't be valid for newer Python versions. I used SageMath 8.3.rc1
\> and Cython 0.28.4.

Do you mean you backport LOAD\_METHOD and fastcall to Python 2.7
for benchmarking?
Reproducing it seems hard job to me...

\--
INADA Naoki <songofacandy@gmail.com>
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org