On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 09:36:12 UTC, Stefam Koch wrote:
On Monday, 24 October 2016 at 06:37:12 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
Cool, thanks for the feedback.
I have take care of the blocker for now.
I turns out my tests contained wrong code that reused a
register for multiple purposes.
LLVM does not like that.
So it assumed the wrong things while optimising and went into
the wrong direction makeing complete bogus out of valid code.
First perf data is in
The is measured with time src/dmd -c -ctfe-bc
old interpreter (without -ctfe-bc) :
new interpreter (-ctfe-bc)
LLVM Backend (-ctfe-bc -version=UseLLVMBackend) :
The compiled code was :
int bug6498(int x)
int n = 0;
while (n < x)