Author nikratio
Recipients benjamin.peterson, hynek, loewis, nikratio, pitrou, stutzbach, vstinner
Date 2014-04-14.02:26:36
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1397442397.35.0.120615304836.issue20578@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> 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.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-04-14 02:26:37nikratiosetrecipients: + nikratio, loewis, pitrou, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, stutzbach, hynek
2014-04-14 02:26:37nikratiosetmessageid: <1397442397.35.0.120615304836.issue20578@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-04-14 02:26:37nikratiolinkissue20578 messages
2014-04-14 02:26:36nikratiocreate