Fwrap to be used by SciPy

Dag Sverre Seljebotn posted this to the fwrap-users mailing list:

This is just a quick note to inform people that I am currently working with Enthought to bring SciPy to the .NET platform. In particular, I will work on the Fortran parts of SciPy.

The primary strategy will be to improve fwrap enough to make it usable for SciPy, and then move SciPy over to fwrap instead of f2py. The point here is that Carl Witty is already working on a .NET backend for Cython, and since fwrap generates Cython code we get the .NET port that way.

All work is done in Enthought’s “refactor” branches for now [1]. The intention is certainly to merge back to main eventually, but questions of how or when or whether will have to wait; getting things up and running on .NET has priority.

Some details:

a) The most important missing feature in fwrap is callbacks. I’m sure there are other things I’ll have to implement as well.

b) The main strategy is to first move (our own branch of) SciPy over to fwrap and have that work on CPython, and then move to compiling things on .NET

c) fwrap does not support g77, only Fortran 90 compilers like gfortran/ifort etc. For the purposes of the .NET port this is likely to be good enough. Before a merge with the main CPython branch one must perhaps look into implementing g77 support in fwrap. I know that David C. at least earlier stated that g77 support is not going away anytime soon. Feedback on this welcome.

Dag Sverre


See the rest of the thread here:


This is great news — fwrap will have significant features implemented, and will become part of a major distribution.  Thanks to everyone involved.  I will pitch in where necessary, if I can carve out some time (thesis, job interviews, papers, etc.).


2 Responses to “Fwrap to be used by SciPy”

  1. Dag Sverre Seljebotn Says:

    After hacking a bit on fwrap, I have to say that looking at generated Cython code for a change, rather than digging through the thousands of lines of C code generated by Cython as I’m used to, is really a change for the better 🙂

    • Kurt Smith Says:

      I just benchmarked fwrap’s wrappers. Wrapping an empty, no argument fortran subroutine generates python wrappers that are about 3-4x faster than the existing fortran wrapper generators. We’re talking about ~50 ns vs. 150-200 ns, so certainly a microbenchmark. But I was pleasantly surprised to see this given fwrap’s extra wrapping layer. I attribute this to Cython’s optimizations.

      Cython: easier on the developer, end-user and machine 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: