On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 21:51:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 2:24:10 PM MDT Cecil Ward via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I wasn’t intending to use DMD, rather ldc if possible or GDC
because of their excellent optimisation, in which DMD seems
lacking, is that fair? (Have only briefly looked at dmd+x86
and haven’t given DMD’s back end a fair trial.)
In general, dmd is fantastic for its fast compilation speed.
So, it works really well for developing whatever software
you're working on (whereas ldc and gdc are typically going to
be slower at compiling). And depending on what you're doing,
the code is plenty fast. However, if you want to maximize the
efficiency of your code, then you definitely want to be
building the binaries that you actually use or release with ldc
or gdc.
- Jonathan M Davis
Good point. I’m used to slow compilers on fast machines and
compiling gives me an excuse for more coffee and possibly fruity
buns. I’m incredibly impressed with LDC, GDC slightly less so, as
it sometimes calls runtime library routines where Ldc doesn’t.
Like in things to do with arrays, for one example.
I hate calls to runtime library routines unless they are really
substantial, mind you many calls to a modest-sized routine can
get you a hotter cache, and even micro-op cache, and keep the
whole code size down so as to improve cache overload or even
pollution.
