Nikolaus Rath added the comment: > Can you please extend your benchmark to also measure read and readinto?
Yes - but I don't quite understand why it matters (if you need read1/readinto1, you cannot just use read/readinto instead). C readinto1: 4.638e-01 seconds C read1: 4.026e-01 seconds C readinto: 4.655e-01 seconds C read: 4.028e-01 seconds Python readinto1: 1.056e+00 seconds Python read1: 2.429e+00 seconds Python readinto: 1.895e+00 seconds Python read: 1.218e+00 seconds That shows that the Python readinto is definetely not up-to-par and could use improvement as well. Is that what you're getting at? > I'm puzzled why you are treating readinto1 differently from readinto. Maybe this is why we seem to be talking past each other :-). I did not look or work on readinto at all. All I noticed is that there is a read1, but no readinto1. So I implemented a readinto1 as well as I could. ---------- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34812/benchmark.py _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20578> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
