RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jan 2 12:14:09 EST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-January/041587.html

On Friday 02 January 2004 04:18 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Anyway, the ability of optionally passing in the number of
> > iterations on the command line would also help with your opposite
> > problem of too-fast machines -- if 50k loops just aren't enough for
> > a reasonably-long run, you could use more.
>
> Yup.  As a matter of historical detail, pystone used to have LOOPS set
> to 1000; in 1997 I changed it to 10K, and in 2002 I bumped it again to
> 50K.
>
> BTW, I'd gladly receive your patch for parameterizing LOOPS for
> inclusion into the standard Python library.

OK, I committed the modified pystone.py directly (I hope the change is
small and "marginal" enough not to need formal review -- easy enough
to back off if I've made some 'oops', anyway...).

Alex

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-January/041587.html below:

Are we collecting benchmark results across machines