On Friday, 29 March 2024 at 00:04:14 UTC, Serg Gini wrote:
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 23:15:26 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
There is no such thing as parallel programming in D anyway. At
least it has modules, but I didn't see it being works.
Whenever I use toys built in foreach() it always ends
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 23:15:26 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
There is no such thing as parallel programming in D anyway. At
least it has modules, but I didn't see it being works. Whenever
I use toys built in foreach() it always ends in disappointment
I think it just works :)
Which issues
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 20:18:10 UTC, rkompass wrote:
I didn't know that OpenMP programming could be that easy.
Binary size is 16K, same order of magnitude, although somewhat
less.
D advantage is gone here, I would say.
There is no such thing as parallel programming in D anyway. At
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 20:18:10 UTC, rkompass wrote:
D advantage is gone here, I would say.
It's hard to compare actually.
Std.parallelism has a bit different mechanics, and I think easier
to use. The syntax is nicer.
OpenMP is an well-known and highly adopted tool, which is also
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 14:07:43 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 11:50:38 UTC, rkompass wrote:
Turning back to this: Are there similarly simple libraries for
C, that allow for
parallel computation?
You can achieve parallelism in C using libraries such as
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 11:50:38 UTC, rkompass wrote:
Turning back to this: Are there similarly simple libraries for
C, that allow for
parallel computation?
You can achieve parallelism in C using libraries such as OpenMP,
which provides a set of compiler directives and runtime
On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 01:09:34 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
Good thing you're digressing; I am 45 years old and I still
cannot say that I am finished as a student! For me this is
version 4 and it looks like we don't need a 3rd variable other
than the function parameter and return value:
On Wednesday, 27 March 2024 at 08:22:42 UTC, rkompass wrote:
I apologize for digressing a little bit further - just to share
insights to other learners.
Good thing you're digressing; I am 45 years old and I still
cannot say that I am finished as a student! For me this is
version 4 and it
I apologize for digressing a little bit further - just to share
insights to other learners.
I had the question, why my binary was so big (> 4M), discovered
the
`gdc -Wall -O2 -frelease -shared-libphobos` options (now >200K).
Then I tried to avoid GC, just learnt about this: The GC in the
On Tuesday, 26 March 2024 at 14:25:53 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote:
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 19:31:19 UTC, Csaba wrote:
I know that benchmarks are always controversial and depend on
a lot of factors. So far, I read that D performs very well in
benchmarks, as well, if not better, as C.
I
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 19:31:19 UTC, Csaba wrote:
I know that benchmarks are always controversial and depend on a
lot of factors. So far, I read that D performs very well in
benchmarks, as well, if not better, as C.
I wrote a little program that approximates PI using the Leibniz
On Monday, 25 March 2024 at 14:02:08 UTC, rkompass wrote:
Of course you may also combine the up(+) and down(-) step to
one:
1/i - 1/(i+2) = 2/(i*(i+2))
```d
double leibniz(int iter) {
double n = 0.0;
for (int i = 1; i < iter; i+=4)
n += 2.0 / (i * (i+2.0));
return n * 4.0;
}
```
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 21:21:13 UTC, kdevel wrote:
Usually you do not translate mathematical expressions directly
into code:
```
n += pow(-1.0, i - 1.0) / (i * 2.0 - 1.0);
```
The term containing the `pow` invocation computes the
alternating sequence -1, 1, -1, ..., which can be
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 23:02:19 UTC, Sergey wrote:
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 22:16:06 UTC, rkompass wrote:
Are there some simple switches / settings to get a smaller
binary?
1) If possible you can use "betterC" - to disable runtime
2) otherwise
```bash
--release --O3 --flto=full
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 22:16:06 UTC, Kdevel wrote:
The term containing the `pow` invocation computes the
alternating sequence -1, 1, -1, ..., which can be replaced by
e.g.
```d
immutable int [2] sign = [-1, 1];
n += sign [i & 1] / (i * 2.0 - 1.0);
```
This saves the expensive call
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 22:16:06 UTC, rkompass wrote:
Are there some simple switches / settings to get a smaller
binary?
1) If possible you can use "betterC" - to disable runtime
2) otherwise
```bash
--release --O3 --flto=full -fvisibility=hidden
The term containing the `pow` invocation computes the
alternating sequence -1, 1, -1, ..., which can be replaced by
e.g.
```
immutable int [2] sign = [-1, 1];
n += sign [i & 1] / (i * 2.0 - 1.0);
```
This saves the expensive call to the pow function.
I used the loop:
```d
for
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 19:31:19 UTC, Csaba wrote:
I know that benchmarks are always controversial and depend on a
lot of factors. So far, I read that D performs very well in
benchmarks, as well, if not better, as C.
I wrote a little program that approximates PI using the Leibniz
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 19:31:19 UTC, Csaba wrote:
As you can see the function that does the job is exactly the
same in C and D.
Not really..
The speed of Leibniz algo is mostly the same. You can check the
code in this benchmark for example:
On Sunday, 24 March 2024 at 19:31:19 UTC, Csaba wrote:
...
Here are the results:
C: 0.04s
Python: 0.33s
D: 0.73s
...
I think a few things can be going on, but one way to go is trying
using optimization flags like "-O2", and run again.
But anyway, looking through Assembly generated:
C:
20 matches
Mail list logo
