<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Stefan Behnel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stefan_ml@behnel.de">stefan_ml@behnel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Maciej Fijalkowski, 11.04.2011 11:53:<br>
<div class="im">> I propose the waf benchmark removal.<br>
><br>
> Originally, the idea was that we're slower than CPython for no good<br>
> reason. Now that this benchmark measures some obscure piece of stdlib<br>
> time (subprocesses) I don't think it's that necessary.<br>
><br>
> Besides:<br>
><br>
> * the variation between runs is too big, so we don't care<br>
> * noone was ever remotely interested in speeding this up<br>
><br>
> any opinions?<br>
<br>
</div>Despite the relatively large variations, Cython runs this benchmark<br>
persistently ~1/3 faster than CPython 2.7 for me - minus the currently<br>
missing support for "__file__", which is used at build time here. So my<br>
vote would be to leave it in, maybe someone has an incentive to speed this<br>
up once you have bars up for Cython. :)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Stefan<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<a href="mailto:pypy-dev@codespeak.net">pypy-dev@codespeak.net</a><br>
<a href="http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev" target="_blank">http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>Personally I'd be happier if it was a bit more of a microbenchmark, it's apparently a macro-benchmark, of subprocess ATM, which makes no sense really :)<br><br>Alex<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)<br>"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero<br>
<br>