Hello everybody, I found in the standard Python lib a test, namely test_builtin, which tests all built-in functions. Is anybody aware of a similar test for the basic built-in types, testing ints, longs, lists, dicts, tuples, strings...? And every opcode? If not, this would probably be a good subproject. Besides, it is something that could be contributed back to CPython. It could also be turned into a much more accurate benchmark than that horrible PyStone ! A bientôt, Armin.
Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> writes:
Hello everybody,
I found in the standard Python lib a test, namely test_builtin, which tests all built-in functions. Is anybody aware of a similar test for the basic built-in types, testing ints, longs, lists, dicts, tuples, strings...?
You're looking for test_types.
And every opcode?
No idea.
If not, this would probably be a good subproject. Besides, it is something that could be contributed back to CPython.
Yes.
It could also be turned into a much more accurate benchmark than that horrible PyStone !
Accurate in what sense? Cheers, M. -- Gullible editorial staff continues to post links to any and all articles that vaguely criticize Linux in any way. -- Reason #4 for quitting slashdot today, from http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/klee/misc/slashdot.html
Hello Michael, On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:15PM +0000, Michael Hudson wrote:
You're looking for test_types.
Thanks!
It could also be turned into a much more accurate benchmark than that horrible PyStone !
Accurate in what sense?
More representative of real Python code. If we do n list operations, m integer operations, p dict operations, q class operations, for suitable values of n, m, p and q, then it would probably be much more representative than this Pascal-like PyStone which just never tests most of Python's very common types and built-in functions (like 'len'). A bientôt, Armin.
Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> writes:
Hello Michael,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:15PM +0000, Michael Hudson wrote:
You're looking for test_types.
Thanks!
No problem.
It could also be turned into a much more accurate benchmark than that horrible PyStone !
Accurate in what sense?
More representative of real Python code.
I don't think test_types is very representative either...
If we do n list operations, m integer operations, p dict operations, q class operations, for suitable values of n, m, p and q, then it would probably be much more representative than this Pascal-like PyStone which just never tests most of Python's very common types and built-in functions (like 'len').
You know about mal's pybench? It's more quantative that pystone, at least. Cheers, M. -- You can remove divmod() when I'm dead. Before then, it stays. I'm sure all will agree that's a reasonable compromise. -- Tim Peters negotiating on python-dev
participants (2)
-
Armin Rigo -
Michael Hudson