But tests taking 1.48 longer to run on average!
Anything I should know about 3.6 and performance?
On 18 November 2016 at 22:42, Luca Sbardella
wrote:
> Pulsar's tests are now run against 3.6-dev and all passing.
> Nice!
> Getting used to the C Future ;-)
>
> On 13 October 2016 at 06:37, INADA Na
Pulsar's tests are now run against 3.6-dev and all passing.
Nice!
Getting used to the C Future ;-)
On 13 October 2016 at 06:37, INADA Naoki wrote:
> Thanks, Ben.
>
> Both are very helpful information!
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Ben Darnell wrote:
> > [+async-sig@python.org, which is t
>
>
>
> 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 and tasks.py
> and run benchmarks in 3.6 to compare Py Futures to C Futures.
>
> Also, which Python 3.6 version are you using? Please try to build one
> fro
On 18 November 2016 at 23:09, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> 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
> 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
Thank you for information.
I'll look it, hopefully in next week.
2016/10/15 午前2:24 "Julien Duponchelle" :
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 8:06 AM Naoki INADA wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I've just pushed C implementation of asyncio.Future [1].
>> It will be included in Python 3.6b2.
>>
>> It may have rough e
[+async-sig@python.org , which is the new home for
these kinds of discussions]
Tornado's tests are now failing on nightly with "TypeError: can't send
non-None value to a FutureIter":
https://travis-ci.org/tornadoweb/tornado/jobs/167252979
-Ben
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:55 PM INADA Naoki wrote:
Thanks, Ben.
Both are very helpful information!
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Ben Darnell wrote:
> [+async-sig@python.org, which is the new home for these kinds of
> discussions]
>
> Tornado's tests are now failing on nightly with "TypeError: can't send
> non-None value to a FutureIter":
> ht
10 matches
Mail list logo
