Author pitrou
Recipients benjamin.peterson, neologix, njs, pitrou, rhettinger, skrah, tim.peters, trent, vstinner, wscullin, xdegaye
Date 2017-10-31.15:01:12
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <8391a847-e609-5df8-db5f-86411e63384c@free.fr>
In-reply-to <1509461704.87.0.213398074469.issue18835@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Le 31/10/2017 à 15:55, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :
> 
> 1) numpy hasn't actually come to a decision about whether to use aligned allocation at all, or under what circumstances.

This isn't the Numpy bug tracker, but I can't help but mention that if
Numpy grew a facility for users to override the memory allocators it
invokes to allocate array data, Numpy may not have to come to a decision
about this at all... ;-) And it would also help specialized
accelerators, which may want to direct Numpy arrays to e.g. memory
that's cheaply shared with the GPU.

(see https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5470)

> I wasn't making a criticism of your API; "it's not you, it's us" :-). But this is a complicated and subtle area that's not really part of CPython's core competency, and coming at a time when people are fretting about how to shrink the C APIs surface area. E.g. I can think of more interesting ways for the PyPy folks to spend their time than implementing an aligned_alloc wrapper...

The same argument can be made for any part of the stdlib or core
language that PyPy has to reproduce.  Besides, I don't think
implementing an aligned_alloc wrapper is very difficult.  The hard part
is getting an agreement over the exposed APIs, and that's CPython's job,
not PyPy ;-)
History
Date User Action Args
2017-10-31 15:01:12pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, tim.peters, rhettinger, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, trent, njs, skrah, neologix, xdegaye, wscullin
2017-10-31 15:01:12pitroulinkissue18835 messages
2017-10-31 15:01:12pitroucreate