On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:25:17 -0700, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm on the debian science email list, which is very low > traffic, and would be happy to post a statement there. > Should I just ask for a Debian developer to > contact William Stein (or Martin Albrecht or me) > if someone reading is a math package manager > for Debian?
David -- Thanks for volunteering to do this. I think you should just post this message to the list. They should contact Singular about further questions about Singular. Olaf's email very clearly indicates that he releases omalloc under the GPL since it says "I hereby ask you to take away those special licensing restrictions of omalloc and to put it under the same license as Singular." --------------- From: "Olaf Bachmann" <ADDRESS DELETED> To: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: by 10.78.157.6 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: omalloc Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Wiliam, sure, use and/or modify omalloc, no problem. @Singular team: I hereby ask you to take away those special licensing restrictions of omalloc and to put it under the same license as Singular. Olaf ------------------- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > On 10/14/06, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:43:47 -0700, Martin Albrecht >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Friday 13 October 2006 16:29, William Stein wrote: >> >> omalloc is now GPL'd! See below. >> > >> > Excellent! Let's make sure the Debian people are informed. They might >> > reconsider packaging Singular (which would mean that they threw their >> > autoconf wisdom in). >> >> The relevant Debian thread is here: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-mentors@lists.debian.org/msg46083.html >> >> However, that thread hides email addresses, and I don't know how or >> want to >> sign up for that list. So I actually have no idea how to inform the >> Debian >> people. Any ideas? >> >> > Also, I've built a shared library of omalloc (by hand, but easily >> > automated), >> > and here are the timing results: >> > >> > sage: x = 3; y = 5 # malloc (GMP default) >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.14 µs per loop >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.05 µs per loop >> > >> > sage: sage.rings.integer.pmem_malloc() >> > >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y # PyMem_Malloc >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.27 µs per loop >> > sage: x = 3; y = 5 >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.21 µs per loop >> > >> > sage: omalloc_malloc() >> > >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y # omalloc >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 7.55 µs per loop >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 7.55 µs per loop >> > >> > My conclusion for small integers: PyMem_Malloc is slower than malloc >> or >> > omalloc. omalloc is slightly faster than malloc. However I find these >> > benchmarks not very expressive (Python overhead, little difference >> etc.) >> > >> > Larger integers: >> > >> > <restart> >> > sage: x = >> > >> 45234723458934634056310653251305043576435013985134515643531450714359863148659136951369851836545643565 >> > >> > sage: y = >> > >> 23423964523462384234234234872345623645623452345283548234652365482348562346523642348263486234954534554 >> > >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y #malloc >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.3 µs per loop >> > >> > sage: sage.rings.integer.pmem_malloc() >> > >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y #PyMem_Malloc >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.58 µs per loop >> > >> > sage: omalloc_malloc() >> > >> > sage: timeit _ = x + y # omalloc >> > 100000 loops, best of 3: 7.58 µs per loop >> > >> > Conclusion for larger integers: These benchmarks seem to reinforce the >> > previous conclusion. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> >> Could you do some simpler benchmarks that compare malloc and omalloc, >> and don't have anything to do with Python? E.g., direct C-level >> mpz_init's, etc.? And allocation of int*'s, etc. That's *all* very >> relevant to implementing SAGE. >> >> william >> >> > >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
