Vitja Makarov, 25.11.2010 15:31:
> Closure tests helped very much to implement all this stuff.
I bet they did.
> I'm not sure (about my PC load) but is seems that whole pyregr test
> takes a little bit less time.
Here's a little artificial benchmark:
def deep_inner():
cdef int x = 1
def f():
def g():
def h():
return x+1
return h
return g()
return f()
** Python 2.7:
Before your patch:
$ python -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.313 usec per loop
$ python -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.348 usec per loop
After your patch:
$ python -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.234 usec per loop
$ python -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.266 usec per loop
** Python 3.2:
Before your patch:
$ python3 -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.299 usec per loop
$ python3 -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.336 usec per loop
After your patch:
$ python3 -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.204 usec per loop
$ python3 -m timeit -s 'from closure_bench import deep_inner as f' 'f()()'
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.247 usec per loop
That's a lot better, I'd say.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
