casevh cas...@gmail.com writes:
Python 3.1 is significantly faster than Python 2.x on 64-bit
platforms. The following times are for multiplication with 2, 30 and
300 decimal digits.
Could you test pow(a,b,c) where a,b,c are each 300 decimal digits?
This is an important operation in
On 21 Apr, 09:11, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote:
casevh cas...@gmail.com writes:
Python 3.1 is significantly faster than Python 2.x on 64-bit
platforms. The following times are for multiplication with 2, 30 and
300 decimal digits.
Could you test pow(a,b,c) where a,b,c are
casevh:
Testing 2 digits. This primarily measures the overhead for call GMP
via an extension module.
...
Thank you for adding some actual data to the whole discussion :-)
If you perform similar benchmarks with Bigints of Java you will see
how much slower they are compared to the Python ones.
On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Using inline ASM in Python sources isn't an option.
Except when it is. :)
There's a tiny amount of inline assembler in the
sources already: see Python/pymath.c and
Python/ceval.c. Not surprisingly, there's some
in the ctypes module as well.
On Apr 21, 8:57 am, alessiogiovanni.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, thanks for your answers. I understand the problems of licensing,
but
we could to learn from GMP's source code to improve the Python's int
implementation,
mainly because, GMP is very fast. We could violate the GPL?
Suggestions
On Apr 21, 12:11 am, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote:
casevh cas...@gmail.com writes:
Python 3.1 is significantly faster than Python 2.x on 64-bit
platforms. The following times are for multiplication with 2, 30 and
300 decimal digits.
Could you test pow(a,b,c) where a,b,c
alessiogiovanni.bar...@gmail.com writes:
Could you test pow(a,b,c) where a,b,c are each 300 decimal digits?
This is an important operation in cryptography, that GMP is carefully
optimized for. Thanks.
Ok, thanks for your answers. I understand the problems of licensing,
but we could to
casevh cas...@gmail.com writes:
Could you test pow(a,b,c) where a,b,c are each 300 decimal digits?
$ py25 -m timeit -s a=long('23'*150);b=long('47'*150);m=long
('79'*150) c=pow(a,b,m)
10 loops, best of 3: 52.7 msec per loop
$ py31 -m timeit -s
100 loops, best of 3: 8.85 msec per
On Apr 21, 5:47 am, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote:
casevh cas...@gmail.com writes:
Could you test pow(a,b,c) where a,b,c are each 300 decimal digits?
$ py25 -m timeit -s a=long('23'*150);b=long('47'*150);m=long
('79'*150) c=pow(a,b,m)
10 loops, best of 3: 52.7 msec per
There are reasons why Python not used the GMP library for implementing
its long type?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
alessiogiovanni.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
There are reasons why Python not used the GMP library for implementing
its long type?
Any reason it should? I don't know GMP (only that it exists), but adding
binary dependencies is always a tricky and in need of careful weighting
thing to do.
Diez
--
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:24:07 +0200, Diez B. Roggisch de...@nospam.web.de
wrote:
alessiogiovanni.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
There are reasons why Python not used the GMP library for implementing
its long type?
Any reason it should? I don't know GMP (only that it exists), but adding
binary
alessiogiovanni.baroni at gmail.com writes:
There are reasons why Python not used the GMP library for implementing
its long type?
Basically, GMP only becomes faster when the numbers are huge.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Apr 20, 7:39 pm, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
alessiogiovanni.baroni at gmail.com writes:
There are reasons why Python not used the GMP library for implementing
its long type?
Basically, GMP only becomes faster when the numbers are huge.
That was true for one
On Apr 20, 10:36 pm, Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com wrote:
The other major issue is licensing: as far as I recall, the
various discussions never came to a conclusion about the legal
implications of using GMP.
It took me a while to find it... See the thread starting at
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org writes:
Basically, GMP only becomes faster when the numbers are huge.
In my experience GMP is about 4x faster than Python longs with 1024
bit numbers, a very common cryptographic size.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Apr 20, 11:39 am, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
alessiogiovanni.baroni at gmail.com writes:
There are reasons why Python not used the GMP library for implementing
its long type?
Basically, GMP only becomes faster when the numbers are huge.
Python 3.1 is significantly
17 matches
Mail list logo
