Thanks Vincent, this seems like it's in the right direction. One possible solution would be to combine the embedded python interpreter with some error handling (as Jori suggested) and wrap all the computations in functions to act as a namespace for variables. Can you explain to me what the sage-sh shell is? It seems like a tightly-coupled dependency to run the software in such a specific environment. Can it be compiled and run without the special shell? If it's mainly setting environment variables, can we find out what they are so that we can instead manage them with our other tools?
(@Jori: unfortunately starting one process and doing all the computations at once won't work for us because we need to dynamically generate the n+1st computation based on the output of the nth computation. We could theoretically port all that logic to python/sage, but we don't really think that's worth it right now) On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:30:02 AM UTC-8, vdelecroix wrote: > > Have a look at > > https://docs.python.org/2/extending/embedding.html > > The following does work for me > > 1. Create a test.c file with > {{{ > #include <Python.h> > > int > main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > Py_SetProgramName("python"); /* optional but recommended */ > Py_Initialize(); > PyRun_SimpleString("from sage.all import *\n" > "print ZZ(3).is_prime()\n"); > Py_Finalize(); > return 0; > } > }}} > > 2. Then to compile you need to do > > $ sage -sh > $ gcc $(python2-config --cflags) $(python2-config --ldflags) test.c > > 3. Run the program (still in the sage-sh shell) > > $ ./a.out > True > > 4. Exit sage environment > > $ exit > > Vincent > > On 10/01/2018 12:22, Berkeley Churchill wrote: > > As part of a research project we're using sage as a subroutine for some > > matrix computations over rings. We have hundreds or thousands of these > > computations, but each computation is fairly quick. Right now, for each > > computation we write python code into a .sage file, and then start a new > > process with "sage somefile.sage > output". This works fine, except > each > > time we incur the startup time, which is about 2.5 seconds (whereas > running > > a tiny python program is < 0.02s). Since we call sage hundreds of > times, > > this adds up pretty quickly. > > > > I'm wondering if there's a better way to do this. Is there a > recommended > > practice? Otherwise, is it possible to start sage in one process and > then > > reuse it? Or, if there's a way to start up sage quickly (comparable to > > python's start time) and then load the modules we need, that would be > cool > > too. I'm hoping for a solution that doesn't require many changes to our > > code or setting up server infrastructure. We also want every > computation > > to be independent of the others. For instance, we don't want an > exception > > in one computation to cause problems for a future one. Any suggestions > are > > appreciated. If it makes any difference, our code base is C++. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
