Message276439
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
docs@python, flox, lemburg, pitrou, python-dev, vstinner |
| Date |
2016年09月14日.13:20:48 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAMpsgwZjUPYcNbsh0sHL2_WbO559XTUMn7bFvBfhabauFHzBVg@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1473794840.69.0.316221750505.issue15369@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> I'd also like to request that you reword this dismissive line in the performance package's readme: (...)
Please report issues of the performance module on its own bug tracker:
https://github.com/python/performance
Can you please propose a new description? You might even create a pull
request ;-)
Note: I'm not sure that we should keep pybench, this benchmark really
looks unreliable. But I should still try at least to use the same
number of iterations for all worker child processes. Currently the
calibration is done in each child process. |
|