[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: If possible, pybench should work unchanged in both Python 2.x and 3.x. Ok, the best I can do is to make it 2.6-compatible. For versions before 2.6, stuff like except Exception as e does not make compatibility reasonably achievable. ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Committed in r69411, r69412. -- resolution: - fixed status: open - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Updated patch. Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12956/pybench3.0-3.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Marc-Andre Lemburg m...@egenix.com added the comment: On 2009-02-06 18:35, Marc-Andre Lemburg wrote: Marc-Andre Lemburg m...@egenix.com added the comment: Perfect ! Thanks, Antoine. Please check it in. Well, except for this part that sneaked in: @@ -4,8 +4,6 @@ # -# Note: Please keep this module compatible to Python 1.5.2. -# # Tests may include features in later Python versions, but these # should then be embedded in try-except clauses in the configuration # module Setup.py. It's ok to bump this to Python 2.3, though :-) ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: It's ok to bump this to Python 2.3, though :-) The current version only works with 3.x, due to the use of the print function with the end keyword argument. Should it be fixed? Regards Antoine. ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Marc-Andre Lemburg m...@egenix.com added the comment: On 2009-02-01 00:39, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: The patch changes results a lot compared to the previous version (BuiltinFunctionCalls is 3x slower). I propose the following patch, which gives roughly the same runtimes as before (I use divmod() and max() rather than complex() and pow()). Even better. However, please see my comments on the ticket: * the version numbers of unaffected tests do not need to be changed * the major pybench version number also doesn't need to be bumped to 3.0, a minor revision (2.1) is good enough Thanks, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: The patch changes results a lot compared to the previous version (BuiltinFunctionCalls is 3x slower). I propose the following patch, which gives roughly the same runtimes as before (I use divmod() and max() rather than complex() and pow()). Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12909/pybench3.0-2.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Since cmp is slated for removal, this should also be done for 3.0.1. -- nosy: +pitrou priority: - release blocker ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: Thanks for the responses! I don't think should go into 3.0.1 - they are a new feature and not a bug fix. But if these changes don't go into 3.0.1, and the removal of cmp does, that means that pybench won't run on 3.0.1. It seems to me that we could make a strong case for this being a bugfix... ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Marc-Andre Lemburg m...@egenix.com added the comment: On 2008-12-22 15:07, Mark Dickinson wrote: Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: Thanks for the responses! I don't think should go into 3.0.1 - they are a new feature and not a bug fix. But if these changes don't go into 3.0.1, and the removal of cmp does, that means that pybench won't run on 3.0.1. It seems to me that we could make a strong case for this being a bugfix... ... or a good case for not removing cmp() from 3.0.1 :-) I have a feeling that people are mixing up the reasons for removal of the __cmp__ slot and the utility of the cmp() builtin. Those two should be treated as separate issues, IMHO. Anyway, like I said: the release manager should decide. ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
New submission from Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com: pybench needs to be updated for Python 3.0, in particular to remove use of cmp. Here's a patch, against the py3k branch. Questions (mainly for Marc-André Lemburg): 1. Should the version number be bumped for *all* tests, or just for those that have changed? Assuming all tests. 2. Presumably these changes should appear in 3.0.1, and should be backported to 2.x. Backport this to 2.6.2? Or just 2.7? 3. Should I update the sample output in the README file? I was going to just change the PYBENCH 2.0 line to PYBENCH 3.0, but that seems a little bit bogus without updating the rest. -- components: Demos and Tools files: pybench3.0.patch keywords: patch messages: 78090 nosy: lemburg, marketdickinson severity: normal status: open title: Update pybench for python 3.0 type: behavior versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.0, Python 3.1 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12405/pybench3.0.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue4704] Update pybench for python 3.0
Marc-Andre Lemburg m...@egenix.com added the comment: On 2008-12-20 11:54, Mark Dickinson wrote: New submission from Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com: pybench needs to be updated for Python 3.0, in particular to remove use of cmp. Here's a patch, against the py3k branch. Questions (mainly for Marc-André Lemburg): 1. Should the version number be bumped for *all* tests, or just for those that have changed? Assuming all tests. Just the tests that have been updated. Since there have been a number of small changes, I think it's time to also change the pybench version itself to 2.1 (not 3.0; that's reserved for more major changes). 2. Presumably these changes should appear in 3.0.1, and should be backported to 2.x. Backport this to 2.6.2? Or just 2.7? I don't think they should go into 3.0.1 - they are a new feature and not a bug fix. I'll leave that decision to the release manager. Please backport to 2.7 only. 3. Should I update the sample output in the README file? I was going to just change the PYBENCH 2.0 line to PYBENCH 3.0, but that seems a little bit bogus without updating the rest. Please run the suite and add the complete new output. Thanks, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com 2008-12-02: Released mxODBC.Connect 1.0.0 http://python.egenix.com/ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue4704 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com