Received: by 10.52.91.134 with SMTP id ce6mr1914366vdb.13.1311706215830;
        Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: shedskin-discuss@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.179.138 with SMTP id dg10ls2076890vdc.2.gmail; Tue, 26 Jul
 2011 11:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.114.10 with SMTP id jc10mr1970575vdb.15.1311706215083;
        Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.114.10 with SMTP id jc10mr1970574vdb.15.1311706215048;
        Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <francois.bouti...@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v20si986624vdu.2.2011.07.26.11.50.15
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of francois.bouti...@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.172;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of francois.bouti...@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=francois.bouti...@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header...@gmail.com
Received: by mail-vx0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 40so557090vxi.3
        for <shedskin-discuss@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=3xiCX+OXttypgZBZTfk3efJg9vG1Aa2rMgAN8Xf89yE=;
        b=JDtDOa7OJgGPjKEvophNo7N2FQ2PlcsrygrDrZGTC3GykBFLk85C9rygtKjUXP/aoC
         n1RttakC+KUPay9MIoD6l4WLWit9Mcy266Zq7HxXUoKFmdxRLJmOeRiqB1rEbxqcNYAb
         FikTGBsXQJvs8aBC6z3GV67zn88rToUPgMpL0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.25.105 with SMTP id b9mr5874717vdg.6.1311706214905; Tue, 26
 Jul 2011 11:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.163.103 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+m65S1HscjrOp7367WA+_KhXjBSka6ORNgGJMKXSfcaadds=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPvwANBq1fS-HLPrkP905VH-cXoGeJh=okp2vmzFqvAtdw7...@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+m65S1HscjrOp7367WA+_KhXjBSka6ORNgGJMKXSfcaadd...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:50:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFq6zAhCmVMMT3br_Zcp-SS-esKHW3Kdn_19YBKjE+Oj=nZ...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New High Performance Python (v0.2) report online
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Boutines?= <francois.bouti...@gmail.com>
To: shedskin-discuss@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Mark Dufour <mark.duf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi ian,
>
>> The are no changes for ShedSkin, I have written up the pyCUDA notes
>> and made small changes for PyPy, I've also added a bit on Algorithmic
>> Choices.
>
> great, thanks for mentioning your update!
>
>>
>> Since Fran=E7ois suggested a few days back that the ShedSkin 0.9 complex
>> number changes didn't change the speed, I didn't rerun the ShedSkin
>> tests (and frankly I rather ran out of time too!).
>
> I hadn't tried this either.. but apparently it goes from 4 to 0.15 second=
s
> on my pc.. :-)

Idem,
from 0.7 sec to 0.05.

I was talking about the Mandelbrot example in the Shedskin distribution :p

Nice work anyways,

Fran=E7ois.