On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:38:43PM +0000, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 17:31:50 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >On 2015-08-18 17:22, Joakim wrote: > > > >>Well, you have to admit that it's pretty impressive that dmd's > >>backend gets within 30% of those monumental backends despite having > >>pretty much only Walter working on it sporadically. > > > >DMD has only a very limited set of targets compared to LLVM and GCC. > >So they need more manpower to maintain and enhance the backends. > > Target are the tip of the iceberg. GCC and LLVM do most of their magic > in the middle, that is common accross front ends and targets. And > honestly, there is no way DMD can catch up.
DMD's optimizer is far behind GDC/LDC. Every one of my own programs that I ran a profiler on, shows a 30-50% decrease in performance when compiled (with all optimization flags on) with DMD, as opposed to GDC. For CPU-intensive programs, DMD's optimizer has a long way to go. T -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? -- Michael Beibl
