--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bottle-neck" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bottle-neck+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bottle-neck...@googlegroups.com.
Tests pass for me on OSX 10.10 with 64-bit pythons 2.7.6 and 3.4.2, both with numpy 1.9.1.
In 3.4 I have a lot (thousands) of numpy warnings, though:/usr/local/anaconda/envs/rewrite/lib/python3.4/site-packages/numpy/lib/nanfunctions.py:220: RuntimeWarning: All-NaN axis encounteredand/usr/local/anaconda/envs/rewrite/lib/python3.4/site-packages/numpy/lib/nanfunctions.py:598: RuntimeWarning: Mean of empty slicewarnings.warn("Mean of empty slice", RuntimeWarning)These don't print for me with 2.7.
emails from it, send an email to bottle-neck...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 4:07:05 PM Keith Goodman <kwgo...@gmail.com> wrote:Here is a rough draft of the tentative release notes:
Bottleneck 1.0.0
This release is a complete rewrite of Bottleneck.
- Function-call overhead cut in half---a big speed up for small input arrays
- Arbitrary ndim input arrays accelerated; previously only 1d, 2d, and 3d
- Single API: bn.nansum instead of bn.nansum and nansum_2d_float64_axis0
- On 64-bit systems bn.nansum(int32) returns int32 instead of int64
- Can now install bottleneck with pip even if numpy is not already installed
- Source tarball is one-xxxx the size of the previous releaseI think the compile time also went down an order of magnitude or two?If that’s the case, mention this here?
I also tried with Python 3.4 on Mac OS X 10.10 and see the warnings Dougal mentioned:
--
Yep, no more warnings here on python 3.4.2 with def4790. I also checked 3.3.5 and 2.6.9, they also pass all tests without warnings.
Very happy that it now takes only a few minutes to compile and test on multiple platforms like this. :)
I am working on a complete rewrite of bottleneck.So far the rewrite contains only a few functions. Before I add more functions I'd like to know if the rewrite of bottleneck compiles on your system and if the unit tests pass.
--
Hi,
I was wondering (I didn't look into your new implementation yet), if you are considering numpy ufuncs for your functions? At scipy they are trying to introduce them more and more including the possibility to pass in a mask for convenient missing value computations. Just wanted to know if you had considered that, are already doing that or if it doesn't really concern the scope of bottleneck.
ubuntu 14.04 64-bit with python 2.7.6All unit tests pass for me onI am working on a complete rewrite of bottleneck.So far the rewrite contains only a few functions. Before I add more functions I'd like to know if the rewrite of bottleneck compiles on your system and if the unit tests pass.
ubuntu 14.04 64-bit with python 3.4.0
I recently installed your rewrite branch on my laptop, older Ubuntu 32bit system, and ran the tests and benchmarks. This is for commit 35a8c650dd7281c3ed7c8efc0d819a81e8eed83f.
The tests showed two failures. I have attached logs.
I think you are running bottleneck master instead of the rewrite branch. I can tell that by the number of unit tests and by the functions in the benchmark.
OK, sorry for the faulty reporting. I'm now on commit fb484e0 on the rewrite branch. I deleted previous installations of bottleneck. Still don't have the necessary partsort module but maybe that's intentional or I'm still doing something wrong.