Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Roman Yakovenko
On 2/1/07, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I understand it, part of the Boost.Python internals is a C++ > wrapper over the Python C api, That's true. >and there's no separate code generation > phase because it uses template magic to generate the wrappers. Well, actually it depends o

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread skip
John> Bottom line: the c-types module was a lot smaller, in Python, and John> completely comprehensible. And while I didn't measure the John> performance, I doubt if it was slower. One advantage SWIG (or Boost.Python) has over ctypes is that it will work with C++. Skip -- http://ma

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread John Roth
On Feb 1, 3:21 am, "Bart Ogryczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with > modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does > SWIG give? Doing profile of my code I see, that it spends quiet some > time in functio

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Chris Mellon
On 2/1/07, Diez B. Roggisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bart Ogryczak wrote: > > > On Feb 1, 12:48 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more > >> > up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrap

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
Bart Ogryczak wrote: > On Feb 1, 12:48 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more >> > up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrappers >> > has been improved since then. But the performance of P

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Bart Ogryczak
On Feb 1, 12:48 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more > > up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrappers > > has been improved since then. But the performance of Python/C API > > would too?

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
> Yeah, found that one googling around. But I haven´t fund anything more > up to date. I imagine, that the performance of all of these wrappers > has been improved since then. But the performance of Python/C API > would too? > Anyways, it´s not about exact number, it´s more about taking decision >

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Bart Ogryczak
On Feb 1, 12:12 pm, Phil Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:21 am, Bart Ogryczak wrote: > > > Hi, > > I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with > > modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does > > SWIG give? Doin

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Phil Thompson
On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:21 am, Bart Ogryczak wrote: > Hi, > I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with > modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does > SWIG give? Doing profile of my code I see, that it spends quiet some > time in functions

Re: SWIG overhead

2007-02-01 Thread Roman Yakovenko
On 1 Feb 2007 02:21:35 -0800, Bart Ogryczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I´m looking for some benchmarks comparing SWIG generated modules with > modules made directly with C/Python API. Just how much overhead does > SWIG give? Doing profile of my code I see, that it spends quiet some > time i