On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:26:43 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:18:34 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 10:45:49 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Martin ran some benchmarks recently that showed that ddmd
compiled with dmd was about 30% slower than when compiled
with gdc/ldc. This seems to be fairly typical.
I'm interested in ways to reduce that gap.
retire dmd?
this is ridiculous.
To further expand upon this,
if you want to make D fast - Fix the interface between the
compiler and the runtime(including the inability for compilers
to inline simple things like allocations which makes
allocations have massive overheads.) Then, fix the GC. Make the
GC both shared and immutable aware, then moving the GC to a
thread local "island"-style GC would be fairly easy. D's GC is
probably the slowest GC of any major language available, and
the entire thing is wrapped in mutexes.
I've been working on that for a while. It is definitively the
right direction fro D IMO, but that is far from being "fairly
easy".
D has far, far bigger performance problems that dmd's backend.
Maybe you should take a look at what Go has recently done with
their GC to get an idea of what D's competition has been up to.
https://talks.golang.org/2015/go-gc.pdf
