logicchains:
Benchmark author here. I left the ldmd2 entry there to
represent the performance of the D implementation from the time
of the benchmark, to highlight that the current D
implementation is much newer than the others, and that there
have been no attempts to optimise the C and C++ versions
similarly to how the latest D version was optimised. If you
feel it creates needless confusion I can remove it, however, or
put a note next to it stating the above.
ldmd2 is not a compiler, it's just a thin wrapper that helps use
the ldc2 compiler with the same command line options of dmd. So I
think putting two entries for ldc2 and ldmd2 is a little
confusing for D newbies, it looks like they are two different
compilers (also because their performance appears different in
the table).
I have just written an answer in your good blog to solve the
small problem you have found in my code. Here is a better
explanation. If you have code like:
uint[10] data;
foreach (i, ref x; data)
x = i;
This code works on 32 bit systems, because the index i of an
array is deduced as a size_t. So it fits inside the array of
uints. On a 64 system i is still size_t, but it's now 64 bit
long, and it can't fit. Most integral values (like int and uint)
in D have a fixed size. While size_t is not fixed in size.
This causes some problems when you want to move 32 bit code to a
64 bit system.
Some times ago I opened an enhancement request on this topic, but
perhaps better solutions are needed:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5063
And the solution suggested by Walter here is not enough:
auto i = array.length;
It's not a big problem, such mistakes usually don't cause
significant problems, and sometimes the attempt to avoid the
problem is worse than the the problem itself.
Bye,
bearophile
