Message168550
| Author |
skrah |
| Recipients |
Robin.Schreiber, ezio.melotti, loewis, mark.dickinson, mrabarnett, pitrou, rhettinger, skrah |
| Date |
2012年08月19日.07:45:04 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20120819074505.GA20781@sleipnir.bytereef.org> |
| In-reply-to |
<1345329400.69.0.320813862108.issue15722@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
The test suite is not a good benchmark: it also tests decimal.py. For
numerical performance I'm running:
cd Modules/_decimal/tests
../../../python bench.py
You can hit Ctrl-C after the first cdecimal result, since that's usually
already a pretty good indicator of overall performance. On 64-bit, for
9 digits of precision cdecimal is currently only around 1.5 times slower
than float. I want to keep that.
Running an unpatched _decimal.c three times gives (Linux, 64-bit, Core2 Duo):
0.162576s 0.165146s 0.163242s
With your second patch:
0.204383s 0.204383s 0.206919s
> Regarding the failing test:
> It appears that the hackcheck() method in typeobject.c is responsible for this failure:
Thanks for the analysis. Perhaps Martin can comment on that. |
|