U ida @sfddlZddlZddlmZmZmZmZddZddZ ddZ Gd d d ej Z e d krbedS) N)typesutilscompilerregistrycCs|SNxrrQ/home/sam/Atlas/atlas_env/lib/python3.8/site-packages/numba/tests/test_wrapper.pyoverheadsr cCsd|d<d|d<dS)Nrrrrrr array_overhead srcCs|||||Srrrrrr addsrc@s$eZdZddZddZddZdS) TestWrappercstttjg}|jtt|dfdd}fdd}fdd}t tt t j |dd t t j |dd t t j |dd d S) zW This will show higher overhead due to unboxing in the native version. Acs tdSr)r rrrr python sz)TestWrapper.test_overhead..pythoncs dSrrrcfuncr rr pycfunc#sz*TestWrapper.test_overhead..pycfunccs dSrrrdispr rr overloaded&sz-TestWrapper.test_overhead..overloaded?ZmaxsecN) rcompile_isolatedr rint32 entry_pointr CPUDispatcher add_overloadprintr benchmarkselfcrrrrrrrr r test_overheads   zTestWrapper.test_overheadcstttjdddg}|jtt|| |j j dj dt jdddfdd }fd d }fd d }ttttj|ddttj|ddttj|dddS)z The time to set two array element seems to be more expensive than the overhead of the overloaded call. Nr rCr r)shapeZdtypecs tdSr)rrrrr r<sz/TestWrapper.test_array_overhead..pythoncs dSrrrrrr r?sz0TestWrapper.test_array_overhead..pycfunccs dSrrrrrr rBsz3TestWrapper.test_array_overhead..overloadedrr)rrrrrrrrr assertEqual signatureargsZlayoutnpZzerosr rr!r"rr%r test_array_overhead.s   zTestWrapper.test_array_overheadcstttjg}|jtt|dfdd}fdd}fdd}t tt t j |dd t t j |dd t t j |dd d S) zu This seems to be about the amount of work to balance out the overhead by the overloaded one rcs tdSr)rrrrr rWsz$TestWrapper.test_add..pythoncs dSrrrrrr rZsz%TestWrapper.test_add..pycfunccs dSrrrrrr r]sz(TestWrapper.test_add..overloadedrrN) rrrrrrrrrr rr!r"rr%r test_addKs   zTestWrapper.test_addN)__name__ __module__ __qualname__r&r-r.rrrr rsr__main__)numpyr,ZunittestZ numba.corerrrrr rrZTestCaserr/mainrrrr sS