Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-January/012401.html below:

Python 2.1 slower than 2.0)

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[Michael Hudson]
> ...
> Can anyone try this on Windows?  Seeing as windows malloc
> reputedly sucks, maybe the differences would be bigger.

No time now (pymalloc is a non-starter for 2.1).  Was tried in the past on
Windows.  Helped significantly.  Unclear how much was simply due to
exploiting the global interpreter lock, though.  "Windows" is also a
multiheaded beast (e.g., NT has very different memory performance
characteristics than 95).

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4