On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 13:50:24 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 13:25:32 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 13:29:30 UTC, Joakim wrote:
[...]
Interesting. A few months ago I wanted to sell ctRegex as the
fastest one in a presentation, but in my benchmarks (based on
[1]) I found it to be of equal speed or slower than
boost::regex (LDC vs Clang).
I've got to take a look at your benchmarks, and repeat mine to
check again if I didn't mess something up.
[1] http://lh3lh3.users.sourceforge.net/reb.shtml
The boost C++ benchmark run in the link I gave says it's more
than 10X slower than the top C one I found D to be faster than,
so I didn't bother with it. Maybe you can speed it up:
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=regexredux&lang=gpp&id=3
As for your benchmark, I'd be surprised if ctRegex wouldn't
beat out Boost given how well it does against the faster PCRE
in the fasta-dna one I tried, but all these microbenchmarks
only look at particular features of a full regex engine, so
it's always possible ctRegex is slower in others.
We disabled the Kickstart engine temporarily as there where
issues with CTFE [1], this means that until newCTFE is out
runtime will be faster in most cases and it won't perform nicely
in benchmark. However, newCTFE is almost finished, and with a bit
of luck we see it in master soon.
[1] https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4995
