2009/11/7 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@[...].net> 

> 
>  Hello again,
> 
>  > It shows that, on my platform for this specific benchmark:
>  >       *  newgil manage to leverage a significant amount of parallelism
>  >         (1.7) where python 3.1 does not (3.1 is 80% slower)
> 
>  I think you are mistaken:
> 
>  -j0 (main thread only)
>  newgil: 47.483s, 47.605s, 47.512s
>  -j4 (4 consumer threads, main thread producing/waiting)
>  newgil: 48.428s, 49.217s
> 
>  The runtimes are actually the same, so newgil doesn't leverage anything.
>  However, it doesn't degrade performance like 2.x/3.1 does :-)
> 

Ooops, I was comparing to 3.1 -j4 times which make no sense. One would think
I wanted to see that result since I though the GIL was released :/. This
greatly reduce the interest of this benchmark...


>  >       * 3.1 is more than 2 times slower than python 2.6 on this
>  >         benchmark
> 
>  That's the most worrying outcome I'd say. Are you sure the benchmark
>  really does the same thing? Under 2.6, you should add re.UNICODE to the
>  regular expression flags so as to match the 3.x semantics.
> 

I've tried, but there is no change in result (the regexp does not use \w &
co but specify a lot unicode ranges). All strings are already of unicode
type in 2.6.


>   > [if I understood correctly in 3.x regex release the GIL].
> 
>  Unless I've missed something it doesn't, no.
> 
Hmmm, I was confusing with other modules (bzip2 & hashlib?). Looking back at
the result of your benchmark it's obvious. Is there a place where the list
of functions releasing the GIL is available? I did not see anything in
bz2.compress documentation.