> > > Place all the code in a function. Even without psyco you might get
> > > somewhat better performances then. And I doubt psyco can optimise code
> > > that isn't in a function anyway.
Another thing I wasn't considering is that the first call with psyco
enabled might be slower. The 2nd time th
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Place all the code in a function. Even without psyco you might get
> > somewhat better performances then. And I doubt psyco can optimise code
> > that isn't in a function anyway.
> >
> > And lastly, most of the code is probably spend c
> Place all the code in a function. Even without psyco you might get
> somewhat better performances then. And I doubt psyco can optimise code
> that isn't in a function anyway.
>
> And lastly, most of the code is probably spend computing x**2 which is
> already optimised C code.
I've changed the c
Hello,
Gregory Piñero a écrit :
> What's the reasoning behind requiring everything to be in functions?
> Just curious.
You may want to read this:
http://psyco.sourceforge.net/introduction.html#differences-with-traditional-jit-compilers
Psyco has to run the code at least once to emit code specia
What's the reasoning behind requiring everything to be in functions?
Just curious.
On 6/20/06, Christophe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Place all the code in a function. Even without psyco you might get
> somewhat better performances then. And I doubt psyco can optimise code
> that isn't in a fu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not seeing much benefit from psyco (only 5-10% faster). Maybe this
> example is too trivial? Can someone give me some pointers as to what
> kind of code would see a dramatic benefit?
>
> Here's the code:
>
> import time
> import psyco
>
> n = 10
>
> t1 = time.
