Re: CTFE Status
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 02:10:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/08/2016 04:24 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Results are obtained running the following code
uint MakeInitAndSumArray(uint length)
{
uint result;
uint[] arr;
arr.length = length;
while(length--)
{
arr[length] = length;
}
foreach(e;arr)
{
result += e;
}
return result;
}
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max));
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max/2));
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max*2));
That's pretty awesome. The new CTFE engine release will soon
rival Tesla Model 3 in terms of interest raised :o).
In addition to artificial corpora like the above, I suggest
comparing against real-world code - starting with simpler
things such as bitfields instantiations.
Andrei
That will not work currently.
Since function and methods calls are still "in the works".
They will require another restructuring as well.
Therefore artificial tests are the best I can do to gunge
performance.
Re: CTFE Status
On 12/08/2016 04:24 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Results are obtained running the following code
uint MakeInitAndSumArray(uint length)
{
uint result;
uint[] arr;
arr.length = length;
while(length--)
{
arr[length] = length;
}
foreach(e;arr)
{
result += e;
}
return result;
}
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max));
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max/2));
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max*2));
That's pretty awesome. The new CTFE engine release will soon rival Tesla
Model 3 in terms of interest raised :o).
In addition to artificial corpora like the above, I suggest comparing
against real-world code - starting with simpler things such as bitfields
instantiations.
Andrei
Re: CTFE Status
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 19:49:47 UTC, Faux Amis wrote: Any reason for the infinite depth update posting style? I would have loved to see each update to be a child of the root post with its own discussions tree. Currently, the posts are quite unreadable in tree view (thunderbird). On 2016-10-31 14:29, Stefan Koch wrote: Hi Guys, since I got a few complaints about giving minor status updates in the announce group, I am opening this thread. The reason it that I don't use the tree view. I just answer to myself every time I have an update. It looks fine on the web-frontend.
Re: CTFE Status
I just wanted to post another performance comparision that does
not test dmd's memory allocator more then anything else :)
[root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c testSettingArrayLength.d
-bc-ctfe
2147385345u
536821761u
4294639619u
real0m0.114s
user0m0.110s
sys 0m0.003s
[root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c testSettingArrayLength.d
2147385345u
536821761u
4294639619u
real0m0.921s
user0m0.843s
sys 0m0.077s
Results are obtained running the following code
uint MakeInitAndSumArray(uint length)
{
uint result;
uint[] arr;
arr.length = length;
while(length--)
{
arr[length] = length;
}
foreach(e;arr)
{
result += e;
}
return result;
}
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max));
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max/2));
pragma(msg, MakeInitAndSumArray(ushort.max*2));
Re: How about a bounty for a new windows installer using inno setup ?
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:03:07 UTC, Thomas Mader wrote:
I think you might be right about using WiX. MSI seems to be
build upon transactional installation.
Do you think it would be possible to use D instead of C++ to
write custom code?
Short answer is yes, I've created such and actually inject my
custom DLL for testing purposes.
MSI's are pretty awkward, no one knows how to create the MSI
database instead there are 3 example databases provided which you
can merge together if you desire that feature. From there the
Database consists of tables which layout the installation
sequence along with the installation sequence for the GUI. These
sequences can call "Custom Actions" which are just table entries
that point to a DLL (there is more to Custom Actions).
The signature looks something like below. I've got a little
wrapper around the MSIHANDLE so as to add some safety and
convenience.
extern(Windows):
export uint MyCustomActionName(const MsiLiveHandle hModule) {
I'm not too familiar with WIX and the exposure I've had is with
older versions (3.x) which have had annoying and weird bugs. D
certainly could be used to create the D MSI installer, but that
is even lower level than WIX.
d***@*******
d***@***
Re: CTFE Status
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 19:13:23 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: I found the biggest performance bottleneck in newCTFE! oldCtfe : [root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c ctfeTest.d testStringEq.d testStringLength.d testStruct.d testMultipleArrayLiterals.d real0m0.026s user0m0.020s sys 0m0.003s Before Fixing : [root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c ctfeTest.d testStringEq.d testStringLength.d testStruct.d testMultipleArrayLiterals.d -bc-ctfe real0m0.025s user0m0.020s sys 0m0.003s After Fixing [root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c ctfeTest.d testStringEq.d testStringLength.d testStruct.d testMultipleArrayLiterals.d -bc-ctfe real0m0.019s user0m0.017s sys 0m0.000s Please note that the ctfe interpretation, with newCTFE, inside the frontend takes 10% of the compilation time Whereas with the old interpreter it takes 50%
Re: CTFE Status
Any reason for the infinite depth update posting style? I would have loved to see each update to be a child of the root post with its own discussions tree. Currently, the posts are quite unreadable in tree view (thunderbird). On 2016-10-31 14:29, Stefan Koch wrote: Hi Guys, since I got a few complaints about giving minor status updates in the announce group, I am opening this thread.
Re: How about a bounty for a new windows installer using inno setup ?
On 12/8/2016 3:03 AM, Thomas Mader wrote: Do you think it would be possible to use D instead of C++ to write custom code? Custom code where? During the process of building the installation package or during installation itself. Anyway, in either case I don't see why not. You can insert a DLL into an MSI file. Then at some point during installation that you specify, the DLL will be extracted and an arbitrary function in it called. So any language that can generate a DLL will work there.
Re: CTFE Status
I found the biggest performance bottleneck in newCTFE! oldCtfe : [root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c ctfeTest.d testStringEq.d testStringLength.d testStruct.d testMultipleArrayLiterals.d real0m0.026s user0m0.020s sys 0m0.003s [root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c ctfeTest.d testStringEq.d testStringLength.d testStruct.d testMultipleArrayLiterals.d -bc-ctfe real0m0.025s user0m0.020s sys 0m0.003s After Fixing [root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c ctfeTest.d testStringEq.d testStringLength.d testStruct.d testMultipleArrayLiterals.d -bc-ctfe real0m0.019s user0m0.017s sys 0m0.000s
Re: OT: Tiobe Index - December Headline: What is happening to good old language C?
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 13:19:31 UTC, Meta wrote: On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 08:46:07 UTC, Nordlöw wrote: On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 07:40:44 UTC, Nick B wrote: source: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ (Dec 2016) Glad to see D at 21. I believe this an improvement compared to previous year. Does anybody got any hard numbers for this? Actually I think D has slipped. I believe it used to be at 18, but I can't remember when that was. It's nice to see D in the ballpark of 1%+. That said, I also think the whole index should be taken with more than one grain of salt. Sources and metrics. Lies, damned lies and statistics. As their disclaimer says, it's the languages most mentioned and with the most search hits that score the highest, not the most used. Maybe it was particularly high when dconf coverage circulated reddit and HN.
Re: [OT] Interesting blog post on disadvantages of the pure functional paradigm
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 13:40:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/disadvantages-of-purely-functional.html -- Andrei Great Find! Thanks for sharing it. This article expresses in nice words what is wrong with mono-paradigm languages. Performance always has to yield to the Paradigm.
Re: Should we warn if we detect null derefernces or void value uses ?
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 08:52:45 UTC, qznc wrote: On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 04:41:55 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: This requires data-flow analysis (The same kind that tells you if you are skipping a statement) And will slow down compilation a little if we enable such a warning. I would rather see a separate tool for stuff like this. It can be much slower and do much more analysis. Compare: clang-analyzer http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/ Due to D's stronger focus on correctness, something like the clang static analyzer has importance in D then it has in C++. Also If we don't stick to unambiguous errors, there will be a LOT of false positives.
[OT] Interesting blog post on disadvantages of the pure functional paradigm
http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/disadvantages-of-purely-functional.html -- Andrei
dconf.org: Merge conflict marker in the banner?
lines 23-28 of index.html <<< 08a5395ead0589eb18e62d3b420781bfa5b0f3e2 alt="DConf 2017: May 4–6 · Berlin" height="116" border="0" /> === Fix year from 2016 to 2017
Re: OT: Tiobe Index - December Headline: What is happening to good old language C?
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 08:46:07 UTC, Nordlöw wrote: On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 07:40:44 UTC, Nick B wrote: source: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ (Dec 2016) Glad to see D at 21. I believe this an improvement compared to previous year. Does anybody got any hard numbers for this? Actually I think D has slipped. I believe it used to be at 18, but I can't remember when that was.
Re: How about a bounty for a new windows installer using inno setup ?
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 23:00:13 UTC, Jim Hewes wrote: On 12/6/2016 10:31 PM, Thomas Mader wrote: The update case could be better supported by Inno by default though I don't know how to really do it transactionally/atomic. Once everything is on the drive, how would you be able to switch from the old directory to the new one with one atomic action under Windows? I liked WiX because it was down to the metal and I don't think there's anything you can't do. With other tools (like InstallShield) I spent too much time trying to get the tool to do something I could have done really easy at the low level if I could've just gotten to it. But granted, for simpler install situations the scripting tools can work OK and have a smaller learning curve. Jim I think you might be right about using WiX. MSI seems to be build upon transactional installation. Do you think it would be possible to use D instead of C++ to write custom code?
Re: OT: Tiobe Index - December Headline: What is happening to good old language C?
It's strange to see "assembly language" as an entry, the target is not specified, so I suppose it includes them all, and is more a way of programming. It would be interesting to see which target (x86, ARM?) are the most used.
Re: How about a bounty for a new windows installer using inno setup ?
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 23:00:13 UTC, Jim Hewes wrote: On 12/6/2016 10:31 PM, Thomas Mader wrote: The update case could be better supported by Inno by default though I don't know how to really do it transactionally/atomic. Once everything is on the drive, how would you be able to switch from the old directory to the new one with one atomic action under Windows? I'm not sure what you mean by switch the directory. If you mean that the update uses a different directory for the program than the original, then you can probably just use a "major" upgrade. Windows Installer has the idea of minor upgrade and major upgrade. (So, it's independent of whatever tools your using.) A minor upgrade just updates the files that have changed. A major upgrade essentially removes the original product totally and installs the new one. Some people even use a major upgrade for _every_ new version just to avoid problems that might occur with a minor upgrade. The Update is triggered by the application itself. If the install fails or is Canceled in the middle the application can not start anymore and so the user needs to do something manually. It would be possible to update everything into a new directory and after everything is done just exchange the stuff in the already installed directory with the new update directory. But even this operation isn't atomic even though it's much better. What might work is to make it work like the Nix package manager. NixOS (Nix Package manager) provides atomic updates because the entire system environment is build by links. Replacing a version with another one is just a matter of changing the link to the proper directory. So in Windows you could do it the same. Install versions in separate directories. The installation directory is linking to the appropriate version directory. On update just install to new version directory and after everything is done just update the installation directory link to the new update directory. No matter what happens either the old or the new application version should be workable.
Re: Should we warn if we detect null derefernces or void value uses ?
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 04:41:55 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: This requires data-flow analysis (The same kind that tells you if you are skipping a statement) And will slow down compilation a little if we enable such a warning. I would rather see a separate tool for stuff like this. It can be much slower and do much more analysis. Compare: clang-analyzer http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/
Re: OT: Tiobe Index - December Headline: What is happening to good old language C?
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 07:40:44 UTC, Nick B wrote: source: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ (Dec 2016) Glad to see D at 21. I believe this an improvement compared to previous year. Does anybody got any hard numbers for this?
Re: OT: Tiobe Index - December Headline: What is happening to good old language C?
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 09:12:39 UTC, piotrklos wrote: Smaller reason: C is being replaced in some applications by Go, D and C++. And most likely also Rust.
