> On Nov 18, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Luca Sbardella wrote:
>
> Running 3.6-dev from travis, currently b4+.
> No debug mode, that is an order of magnitude slower ;-)
FWIW I found that I can’t really trust the build times on travis for measuring
any kind of performance regressions. You don’t know how
Also, are you using uvloop or vanilla asyncio? Try to benchmark vanilla first.
And if you have time, please try to test different combinations on vanilla
asyncio:
Python 3.5 + vanilla asyncio
Python 3.6 + vanilla asyncio
Python 3.6 + Py Future + Py Task
Python 3.6 + Py Future + C Task
Python 3
> On Nov 18, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Luca Sbardella wrote:
>
> But tests taking 1.48 longer to run on average!
> Anything I should know about 3.6 and performance?
>
That shouldn’t happen. Are you sure you aren’t running them in debug mode?
Try to comment out imports of ‘_asyncio’ in futures.py a
One of the big problems I've seen with the basic approachability of
async/await in Python is the lack of interpreter support.
You might want to have a look at aioconsole [1]; it provides an
asynchronous REPL that you can use to interact with asyncio servers.
You can try it out using the ap
