2013/5/30 Nathan Hurst <n...@njhurst.com> > > Does it still make sense to add programs like this to our benchmarks? > > So far, our benchmarks are "real-life" examples. The benchmarks like > > above are completely missing the point of PyPy, as they don't stress > > at all the Python interpreter part. There are also other cases where > > PyPy's performance is very bad, like cpyext on an extension module > > with lots of small C API calls. I believe that it would still make > > sense to list such cases in the official benchmark, and have the > > descriptions of the benchmarks explain what's wrong with them. > > I agree that you should include them, I disagree that they are > 'wrong'. They measure the overhead of a C call. Why should a C call > be slower in pypy than cpython? Presumably it could be compiled down > to the appropriate instructions and then out-perform cpy. >
The C API here is the one of the CPython interpreter (PyLong_FromLong &co) To support it PyPy has to emulate many aspects, specially the fact that pypy objects are movable memory, and a PyObject* pointer is not supposed to change. To get fair benchmarks, those extension modules should be rewritten, with cffi for example: its C calls have very little overhead, and it integrates very well with the rest of the PyPy interpreter. -- Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
_______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
