On 08/25/2014 09:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > On 8/23/2014 6:32 PM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote: >>> I'm not convinced that using an adapter algorithm won't be just as fast. >> Consider your own talks on optimizing the existing dmd lexer. In >> those talks >> you've talked about the evils of additional processing on every byte. >> That's >> what you're talking about here. While it's possible that the inliner >> and other >> optimizer steps might be able to integrate the two phases and remove some >> overhead, I'll believe it when I see the resulting assembly code. > > On the other hand, deadalnix demonstrated that the ldc optimizer was > able to remove the extra code. > > I have a reasonable faith that optimization can be improved where > necessary to cover this.
I just happened to write a very small script yesterday and tested with the compilers (with dub --build=release). dmd: 2.8 mb gdc: 3.3 mb ldc 0.5 mb So ldc can remove quite a substantial amount of code in some cases.
