Hi,
I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with
modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does
SWIG give? Doing profile of my code I see, that it spends quiet some
time in functions like _swig_setattr_nondinamic, _swig_setattr,
_swig_getattr.
--
On 1 Feb 2007 02:21:35 -0800, Bart Ogryczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with
modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does
SWIG give? Doing profile of my code I see, that it spends quiet some
time in
On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:21 am, Bart Ogryczak wrote:
Hi,
I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with
modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does
SWIG give? Doing profile of my code I see, that it spends quiet some
time in functions
On Feb 1, 12:12 pm, Phil Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:21 am, Bart Ogryczak wrote:
Hi,
I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with
modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does
SWIG give? Doing profile
Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more
up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrappers
has been improved since then. But the performance of Python/C API
would too?
Anyways, it´s not about exact number, it´s more about taking decision
if
On Feb 1, 12:48 pm, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more
up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrappers
has been improved since then. But the performance of Python/C API
would too?
Anyways,
Bart Ogryczak wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:48 pm, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more
up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrappers
has been improved since then. But the performance of Python/C API
On 2/1/07, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Ogryczak wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:48 pm, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more
up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrappers
has been
On Feb 1, 3:21 am, Bart Ogryczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with
modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does
SWIG give? Doing profile of my code I see, that it spends quiet some
time in functions like
John Bottom line: the c-types module was a lot smaller, in Python, and
John completely comprehensible. And while I didn't measure the
John performance, I doubt if it was slower.
One advantage SWIG (or Boost.Python) has over ctypes is that it will work
with C++.
Skip
--
On 2/1/07, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it, part of the Boost.Python internals is a C++
wrapper over the Python C api,
That's true.
and there's no separate code generation
phase because it uses template magic to generate the wrappers.
Well, actually it depends on the
11 matches
Mail list logo