On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Stefan Behnel <firstname.lastname@example.org
> Maciej Fijalkowski, 02.02.2012 14:35:
>>> Oh, we have that feature, it's called CPython. The thing is that Cython
>>> doesn't get to see the generated sources, so it won't compile them and
>>> instead, CPython ends up executing the code at normal interpreted speed. So
>>> there's nothing gained by running the benchmark at all. And even if we
>>> found a way to hook into this machinery, I doubt that the static compiler
>>> overhead would make this any useful. The whole purpose of generating code
>>> is that it likely will not look the same the next time you do it (well,
>>> outside of benchmarks, that is), so even a cache is unlikely to help much
>>> for real code. It's like PyPy running code in interpreting mode before it
>>> gets compiled, except that Cython will never compile this code, even if it
>>> turns out to be worth it.
>>> Personally, I rather consider it a feature that users can employ exec()
>>> from their Cython code to run code in plain CPython (for whatever reason).
>> Yes, ok, but I believe this should mean "Cython does not give speedups
>> on this benchmark" and not "we should modify the benchmark".
> Oh, I hadn't suggested to modify it. I was merely stating (as part of a
> longer list) that it's of no use specifically to Cython. I.e., if there's
> something to gain from having the benchmark runs take less time by
> disabling benchmarks for specific runtimes, it's one of the candidates on
> our side.