Am 27.01.2013 13:31, schrieb Johannes Pfau:
Am Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:38:33 +0100
schrieb Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch>:
On 01/27/2013 11:42 AM, Brian Schott wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 10:17:48 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
>> * Having a range interface is good. Any reason why you made
>> byToken a class and not a struct? Most (like, 99%) of range in
>> Phobos are structs. Do you need reference semantics?
>
> It implements the InputRange interface from std.range so that users
> have a choice of using template constraints or the OO model in
> their code. ...
The lexer range must be a struct.
> ...
>> * A rough estimate of number of tokens/s would be good (I know
>> it'll vary). Walter seems to think if a lexer is not able to vomit
>> thousands of tokens a seconds, then it's not good. On a related
>> note, does your lexer have any problem with 10k+-lines files?
>
> $ time dscanner --sloc ../phobos/std/datetime.d
> 14950
>
> real 0m0.319s
> user 0m0.313s
> sys 0m0.006s
>
> $ time dmd -c ../phobos/std/datetime.d
>
> real 0m0.354s
> user 0m0.318s
> sys 0m0.036s
>
> Yes, I know that "time" is a terrible benchmarking tool, but they're
> fairly close for whatever that's worth.
>
You are measuring lexing speed against compilation speed. A
reasonably well performing lexer is around one order of magnitude
faster on std.datetime. Maybe you should profile a little?
Profiling is always a good idea, but to be fair: His dmd was probably
compiled with gcc and -O2 if it's a normal release build.
So to compare that he should use gdc, -O2 -release -fno-bounds-check
and probably more flags to compile the d code.
that makes no sense - we need a tiny piece of benchmark code inside of
dmd frontend (and gdc) - these results are the only reliable/compareable
benchmark
someone knows the place where such benchmarking can take place in the
dmd frontend code?
