Message259919
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
Yury.Selivanov, casevh, josh.r, lemburg, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, vstinner, yselivanov, zbyrne |
| Date |
2016-02-09.09:15:55 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAMpsgwZpCQy8MZJd-JFn3hm4n2rTBAgKc9oSA_ihFerOMATbNQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1455006342.13.0.432655345108.issue21955@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
Case Van Horsen added the comment:
> I ran the mpmath test suite with the fastint6 and fastint5_4 patches.
>
> fastint6 results
> without gmpy: 0.25% faster
> with gmpy: 3% slower
>
> fastint5_4 results
> without gmpy: 1.5% slower
> with gmpy: 5.5% slower
I'm more and more disappointed by this issue... If even a test
stressing int & float is *slower* (or less than 1% faster) with a
patch supposed to optimized them, what's the point? I'm also concerned
by the slow-down for other types (gmpy types).
Maybe we should just close the issue? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2016-02-09 09:15:55 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, lemburg, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou, casevh, skrah, Yury.Selivanov, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov, josh.r, zbyrne |
| 2016-02-09 09:15:55 | vstinner | link | issue21955 messages |
| 2016-02-09 09:15:55 | vstinner | create | |
|