GSoC: Rewriting scipy.ndimage in Cython
AMAN singh
ug201310004 at iitj.ac.in
Sat Apr 4 14:06:28 EDT 2015
Hi everyone
@Jaime Thanks for the suggestion. This is really a great idea I will follow
this excellent strategy while rewriting the module.
@Stefanv I was not able to add the suggestions of Jaime since my proposal
was locked . Can you please allow me revise my proposal? I want to include
Jaime's suggestion in it.
Regards,
Aman Singh
> That sounds about right. I think that breaking down the schedule to what
> function will be ported what week is little more than wishful thinking, and
> that keeping things at the file level would make more sense. But I think
> you are getting your proposal there.
>
> One idea that just crossed my mind: checking your implementation of the
> iterators and other stuff in support.c for correctness and performance is
> going to be an important part of the project. Perhaps it is a good idea to
> identify, either now or very early on the project, a few current ndimage
> top level functions that use each of those objects, if possible without
> interaction with the others, and build a sequence that could look something
> like (I am making this up in a hurry, so don't take the actual function
> names proposed too seriously, although they may actually make sense):
>
> Port NI_PointIterator -> Port NI_CenterOfMass, benchmark and test
> Port NI_LineBuffer -> Port NI_UniformFilter1D, benchmark and test
> ...
>
> This would very likely extend the time you will need to implement all the
> items in support.c. But by the time you were finished with that we would
> both have high confidence that things were going well, plus a "Rosetta
> Stone" that should make it a breeze to finish the job, both for you and
> anyone else. We would also have an intermediate milestone (everything in
> support ported plus a working example of each being used, with correctness
> and performance verified), that would be a worthy deliverable on its own:
> if we are terribly miscalculating task duration, and everything slips and
> is delayed, getting there could still be considered a success, since it
> would make finishing the job for others much, much simpler.
>
> One little concern of mine, and the questions don't really go to Aman, but
> to the scipy devs: the Cython docs on fused types have a big fat warning at
> the top on support still being experimental. Also, this is going to bump
> the version requirements for Cython to a very recent one. Are we OK with
> this?
>
> Similarly, you suggest using Cython's prange to parallelize computations.
> I haven't seen OpenMP used anywhere in NumPy or SciPy, and have the feeling
> that parallel implementations are left out on purpose. Am I right, or would
> parallelizing were possible be OK?
>
> Jaime
>
> --
> (\__/)
> ( O.o)
> ( > <) Este es Conejo. Copia a Conejo en tu firma y ayúdale en sus planes
> de dominación mundial.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-image/attachments/20150404/f681f3d0/attachment.html>
More information about the scikit-image
mailing list