On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 04:56:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 9/20/12 6:03 PM, renoX wrote:
Thank for these slides.
I didn't get some part of the VRP slides: p40 of the third
lesson:
byte a, b, c;
a = 1;
b = c | a; // error
Is-this really an error? A binary-or operation on
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:58:21 +0200, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 9/20/12 10:06 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
Cool. And now the inevitable: Will there be video?
No video was taken.
Andrei
*sadface*
--
Simen
On 21-Sep-12 03:27, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/21/2012 12:51 AM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
chain has type Result. dynRange takes an arbitrary range and transforms
it into a range with the same value/vs reference behaviour whose static
type depends only on the element type.
I see. So that
On 21 September 2012 04:47, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of the GCC Explorer at
http://gcc.godbolt.org - a very handy online disassembler for GCC.
We got to talk a bit about D and he hacked together support for D by using
gdc.
On 9/21/12, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
snip
Integrating this with dpaste would be aweee..sooome!
Le 21/09/2012 01:13, Timon Gehr a écrit :
You could post an enhancement request to allow interpretation of
incompletely-analyzed functions, if you think it is of any use.
I predict tricky implementation.
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 00:11:51 Jens Mueller wrote:
I thought foo is interpreted at compile time.
There seems to be a subtle difference I'm not getting.
Because you can do the factorial using CTFE even though you have
recursion. I.e. there you have a call to
Am Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:41:23 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com:
On 20-Sep-12 22:18, bearophile wrote:
Johannes Pfau:
The perfect solution:
Would allow user defined attributes on tests, so you could name
them, assign categories, etc. But till we have those user
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:55:48 +0200, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com
wrote:
Section 2.3 is about Scan operations, that are like reduce or fold, but
keep all the intermediate results too:
+\ of 3 1 2 4
is 3 4 6 10
Some lazy scans are present in the Haskell Prelude too (and in
On 2012-09-20 21:11, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Oh right, I thought that interface was more restrictive. So the only
changes necessary in druntime are to adapt to the new compiler
interface.
The new dmd code is still necessary, as it allows to access
all unittests of a module individually. The
On 2012-09-20 23:14, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Running more unittest blocks after a failure is similarly flawed, but at least
in that case, you know that had a failure earlier in the module, which should
then tell you that you may not be able to trust further tests (but if you
still run them,
On 2012-09-21 06:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
For a very simple reason: unless the algorithm under benchmark is very
long-running, max is completely useless, and it ruins average as well.
I may have completely misunderstood this but aren't we talking about
what do include in the output of
On 2012-09-21 05:47, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of the GCC Explorer at
http://gcc.godbolt.org - a very handy online disassembler for GCC.
We got to talk a bit about D and he hacked together support for D by
using gdc. Take a look at http://d.godbolt.org, I
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 04:44:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
My claim is unremarkable. All I'm saying is the minimum running
time of an algorithm on a given input is a stable and
indicative proxy for the behavior of the
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of the GCC Explorer at
http://gcc.godbolt.org - a very handy online disassembler for GCC.
This is not a disassembler. It just stops compilation before the
assembler (gcc -S). A dissembler would create the assembler code given
only
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 10:04:00 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of the GCC Explorer at
http://gcc.godbolt.org - a very handy online disassembler for
GCC.
This is not a disassembler. It just stops compilation before the
assembler
Jens Mueller wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 00:11:51 Jens Mueller wrote:
I thought foo is interpreted at compile time.
There seems to be a subtle difference I'm not getting.
Because you can do the factorial using CTFE even though you have
recursion.
On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:44:11 Jens Mueller wrote:
Is it also illegal to do
int foo(char[] s) {
if (__ctfe)
return mixin(s);
else
return ; // or assert(false)
}
?
Because this is executable at run time.
It's not executable at runtime. The __ctfe branch may very
Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/20/2012 11:22 PM, Jens Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I do not understand the following error message given the code:
string foo(string f)
{
if (f == somestring)
{
return got somestring;
}
return bar!(foo(somestring));
}
template
On 21 September 2012 11:17, Bernard Helyer b.hel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 10:04:00 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of the GCC Explorer at
http://gcc.godbolt.org - a very handy online disassembler for GCC.
On 21 September 2012 11:29, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 21 September 2012 11:17, Bernard Helyer b.hel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 10:04:00 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of the GCC Explorer at
Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 21 September 2012 11:29, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 21 September 2012 11:17, Bernard Helyer b.hel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 10:04:00 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 21:39:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 21:57:47 Jonas Drewsen wrote:
In foreach statements the type can be inferred:
foreach (MyFooBar fooBar; fooBars) writeln(fooBar);
same as:
foreach (foobar; fooBars) writeln(fooBar);
This is
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:11:49 +0200
schrieb Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com:
On 2012-09-20 21:11, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Oh right, I thought that interface was more restrictive. So the only
changes necessary in druntime are to adapt to the new compiler
interface.
The new dmd code is still
I'll add that delegate literals already allow a similar syntax, so, for
consistency reasons, this is something that make sense.
On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:14:56 Jonas Drewsen wrote:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my suggestion. The new syntax in simply a
way to define a templated function - not a non-templated one ie:
auto foo(a,b) {}
is exactly the same as
auto foo(A,B)(A a, B b) {}
So all it does is save you a few
Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:11:49 +0200
schrieb Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com:
On 2012-09-20 21:11, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Oh right, I thought that interface was more restrictive. So the only
changes necessary in druntime are to adapt to the new compiler
interface.
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:16:14 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:46:00 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
There's also a
On 2012-09-21 14:19, Jens Mueller wrote:
Why do you need filename and line information of a unittest. If a
unittest fails you'll get the relevant information. Why do you want the
information when a unittest succeeded? I only care about failed
unittests. A count of the number of executed
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 11:10:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[SNIP]
- Jonathan M Davis
#1
Hey, I've been working on this (locally): I've made all the PRNGs
reference ranges. It actually works perfectly. I took the ensure
initialized route, as you suggested. I was able to take an
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I've met Matt Goldbolt, the author of the GCC Explorer at
http://gcc.godbolt.org - a very handy online disassembler for
GCC.
We got to talk a bit about D and he hacked together support for
D by using gdc. Take a look at http://d.godbolt.org, I think
it's pretty darn
On 09/21/2012 10:29 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 21/09/2012 01:13, Timon Gehr a écrit :
You could post an enhancement request to allow interpretation of
incompletely-analyzed functions, if you think it is of any use.
I predict tricky implementation.
This depends on the existing code base. It is
I'd like a way to filter the output to the
disassembly of just one (or few) functions, because otherwise
the output risks being too much large.
It seems even this program produces a too much long asm listing
for the site:
import std.stdio;
void main() {
writeln(%f, 1.5);
}
Bye,
On 09/21/2012 12:23 PM, Jens Mueller wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
...
The issue is that CTFE can only interpret functions that are fully
analyzed and therefore the analysis of foo depends circularly on
itself. The compiler should spit out an error that indicates the
issue.
That is true. I will
It seems even this program produces a too much long asm listing
for the site:
import std.stdio;
void main() {
writeln(%f, 1.5);
}
Compiled with:
-O0 -march=native
Bye,
bearophile
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 21:15:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:46:00 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0400
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-21 14:19, Jens Mueller wrote:
Why do you need filename and line information of a unittest. If a
unittest fails you'll get the relevant information. Why do you want the
information when a unittest succeeded? I only care about failed
unittests. A count of the
On 21 September 2012 07:17, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 9/20/12 10:05 AM, Manu wrote:
Memory locality is often the biggest contributing
performance hazard in many algorithms, and usually the most
unpredictable. I want to know about that in my measurements.
On 21 September 2012 14:49, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
It seems even this program produces a too much long asm listing for the
site:
import std.stdio;
void main() {
writeln(%f, 1.5);
}
Compiled with:
-O0 -march=native
Bye,
bearophile
Curse those templates. ;-)
However, what's truly insane IMHO is continuing to run a
unittest block after
it's already had a failure in it. Unless you have exceedingly
simplistic unit
tests, the failures after the first one mean pretty much
_nothing_ and simply
clutter the results.
I disagree. Not only are my unit
On 21 September 2012 07:30, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I don't quite agree. This is a domain in which intuition is having a hard
time, and at least some of the responses come from an intuitive standpoint,
as opposed from hard data.
For example, there's this
On 21 September 2012 07:45, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
As such, you're going to need a far more
convincing argument than It worked well for me.
Sure. I have just detailed the choices made by std.benchmark in a couple
of posts.
At Facebook we measure using
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:37:37 +0200
schrieb Jens Mueller jens.k.muel...@gmx.de:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-21 14:19, Jens Mueller wrote:
Why do you need filename and line information of a unittest. If a
unittest fails you'll get the relevant information. Why do you
With the recent
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 21:04:15 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/20/2012 10:52 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
Like it or not, templates still cause a lot of code bloat,
complicate
linking, cannot be virtual, increase compilation resources,
and generate
difficult to understand messages. They
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:25:10 +0200
schrieb Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com:
On 2012-09-20 23:14, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Running more unittest blocks after a failure is similarly flawed,
but at least in that case, you know that had a failure earlier in
the module, which should then tell you
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:57:47 -0400, Jonas Drewsen jdrew...@nospam.com
wrote:
In foreach statements the type can be inferred:
foreach (MyFooBar fooBar; fooBars) writeln(fooBar);
same as:
foreach (foobar; fooBars) writeln(fooBar);
This is nice and tidy.
Wouldn't it make sense to allow the
I'm actually kinda surprised the feedback on this is rather
negative. I
thought running unit tests individually and printing
line/file/name was
requested quite often?
I want to have this. My workflow is: Run all tests0(run all). If
some fail, see if there might be a common reason (so don't
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 13:19:55 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
QUESTION:
If I (were to) deprecate save, how would that work with the
range traits type? If a range has save, but it is deprecated,
does it answer true to isForwardRange?
Never mind I found out the answer: Using something
On 9/21/12 10:58 AM, Manu wrote:
What I'm typically more interested in is profiling. I do occasionally
need to do some benchmarking by your definition, so I'll find this
useful, but should there then be another module to provide a 'profiling'
API? Also worked into this API?
That's a good
Hello
I'm porting my connection library to Firebird database for the D
language, and I'm having problems with Access Violation using
DMD (did some testing and this problem does not occur with GDC).
This code is based on a simple C implementation, and it works ok
in VC++ and GCC):
[code]
On 2012-09-21 16:37, Jens Mueller wrote:
If there are use cases I agree. I do not know one.
The question whether there are *tools* that report in case of success is
easier to verify. Do you know any tool that does reporting in case
success? I think gtest does not do it. I'm not sure about
On 2012-09-21 17:32, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Well, I think we should just leave the basic unittest runner in
druntime unchanged. There are unittests in phobos which depend on that
behavior.
Yeah, this was more a philosophical discussion.
Other projects can use a custom test runner like Jens
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:15:13 +0200
schrieb Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com:
On 2012-09-21 17:32, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Well, I think we should just leave the basic unittest runner in
druntime unchanged. There are unittests in phobos which depend on
that behavior.
Yeah, this was more a
On 2012-09-21 18:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
That's a good angle. Profiling is currently done by the -profile switch,
and there are a couple of library functions associated with it. To my
surprise, that documentation page has not been ported to the dlang.org
style:
On 09/21/2012 03:04 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:
But it's nice to have source code and assembly side by side.
Jens
And very nice to have demangled names in assembly.
On 2012-09-21 20:01, Johannes Pfau wrote:
I didn't think of setAssertHandler. My changes are perfectly compatible
with it.
IIRC setAssertHandler has the small downside that it's used for all
asserts, not only those used in unit tests? I'm not sure if that's a
drawback or actually useful.
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:45:44 -0400
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
The issue here is automating the benchmark of a module, which would
require some naming convention anyway.
A perfect use case for user defined attributes ;-)
@benchmark void foo(){}
@benchmark(File
Although I like it, I wonder if it works in D's context free
grammar. Timon probably would know best...
I came up with this code, which compiles today:
import std.stdio;
alias int x;
void foo(x) {}
void foo2(string x) {writeln(x);}
void main()
{
foo(1);
foo2(hello);
}
Under your
On 2012-09-21 19:45, Johannes Pfau wrote:
A perfect use case for user defined attributes ;-)
@benchmark void foo(){}
@benchmark(File read test) void foo(){}
Yes, we need user defined attributes and AST macros ASAP :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
After extensive tests with a variety of aggregate functions, I
can say firmly that taking the minimum time is by far the best
when it comes to assessing the speed of a function.
Like others, I must also disagree in princple. The minimum sounds
like a useful metric for functions that (1) do
As far as I know, D doesn't offer a sampling profiler,
It is possible to use a sampling profiler on D executables
though. I usually use perf on Linux and AMD CodeAnalyst on
Windows.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:54:21PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]
In big corporations you spend more time taking care of existing
projects in big teams, than developing stuff from scratch.
In these type of environments you learn to appreciate the verbosity
of certain programming languages,
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 11:40:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:14:56 Jonas Drewsen wrote:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my suggestion. The new syntax in
simply a
way to define a templated function - not a non-templated one
ie:
auto foo(a,b) {}
is exactly the
On 21 September 2012 07:23, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
For a very simple reason: unless the algorithm under benchmark is very
long-running, max is completely useless, and it ruins average as well.
This is only true for systems with a comprehensive pre-emptive OS
On Friday, September 21, 2012 17:58:05 Manu wrote:
Okay, I can buy this distinction in terminology.
What I'm typically more interested in is profiling. I do occasionally need
to do some benchmarking by your definition, so I'll find this useful, but
should there then be another module to
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 15:04:14 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:57:47 -0400, Jonas Drewsen
jdrew...@nospam.com wrote:
In foreach statements the type can be inferred:
foreach (MyFooBar fooBar; fooBars) writeln(fooBar);
same as:
foreach (foobar; fooBars)
On Friday, September 21, 2012 15:20:49 monarch_dodra wrote:
#3
The only thing I'm having an issue with is save. IMO, it is
exceptionally dangerous to have a PRNG be a ForwardRange: It
should only be saved if you have a damn good reason to do so. You
can still dup if you want (manually) (if
On 9/19/12 4:12 AM, Thiez wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 September 2012 at 22:01:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
After extensive tests with a variety of aggregate functions, I can say
firmly that taking the minimum time is by far the best when it comes
to assessing the speed of a function.
What if
On 9/19/12 4:06 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
I don't see why `benchmark` takes (almost) all of its parameters as
template parameters. It looks quite odd, seems unnecessary, and (if I'm
not mistaken) makes certain use cases quite difficult.
That is intentional - indirect calls would add undue
On 9/19/12 3:54 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-19 11:38, Peter Alexander wrote:
The problem with slowest is that you end up with the occasional OS
hiccup or GC collection which throws the entire benchmark off. I see
your point, but unless you can prevent the OS from interrupting, the
On 9/19/12 4:11 PM, Øivind wrote:
New question for you :)
To register benchmarks, the 'scheduleForBenchmarking' mixin inserts a
shared static initializer into the module. If I have a module A and a
module B, that both depend on eachother, than this will probably not
work..? The runtime will
On 9/19/12 3:59 PM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
For comparison's sake, the Criterion benchmarking package for Haskell is
worth a look:
http://www.serpentine.com/blog/2009/09/29/criterion-a-new-benchmarking-library-for-haskell/
Criterion accounts for clock-call costs, displays various central
On 20/09/12 19:04, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 17:26:25 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Some rather urgent news: LDC has just been blacklisted in Ubuntu.
It is not really news, as the LDC version in the Debian repo has not been
updated for ages.
It's not
On 9/20/12 3:42 AM, Manu wrote:
On 19 September 2012 12:38, Peter Alexander
peter.alexander...@gmail.com mailto:peter.alexander...@gmail.com wrote:
The fastest execution time is rarely useful to me, I'm almost
always much
more interested in the slowest execution time.
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:09:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:54:21PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]
In big corporations you spend more time taking care of existing
projects in big teams, than developing stuff from scratch.
In these type of environments you learn
On 21-Sep-12 22:49, David Piepgrass wrote:
After extensive tests with a variety of aggregate functions, I can say
firmly that taking the minimum time is by far the best when it comes
to assessing the speed of a function.
As far as I know, D doesn't offer a sampling profiler, so one might
I'd throw in a request to address the following.
Suppose we have a function F and a set of inputs S that are supposedly
different scenarios we optimize for.
What is interesting is to benchmark all of F(S[i]) as |S| separate
functions greatly saving on boilerplate (and helping readability).
On Friday, September 21, 2012 15:59:31 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/19/12 4:11 PM, Øivind wrote:
New question for you :)
To register benchmarks, the 'scheduleForBenchmarking' mixin inserts a
shared static initializer into the module. If I have a module A and a
module B, that both
Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:37:37 +0200
schrieb Jens Mueller jens.k.muel...@gmx.de:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-21 14:19, Jens Mueller wrote:
Why do you need filename and line information of a unittest. If a
unittest fails you'll get the relevant
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-21 16:37, Jens Mueller wrote:
If there are use cases I agree. I do not know one.
The question whether there are *tools* that report in case of success is
easier to verify. Do you know any tool that does reporting in case
success? I think gtest does not do
On 9/21/12 5:39 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-21 06:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
For a very simple reason: unless the algorithm under benchmark is very
long-running, max is completely useless, and it ruins average as well.
I may have completely misunderstood this but aren't we
On 9/21/12 11:12 AM, Manu wrote:
On 21 September 2012 07:45, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
As such, you're going to need a far more
convincing argument than It worked well for me.
Sure. I have just detailed
On 21-Sep-12 23:59, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/19/12 4:11 PM, Øivind wrote:
New question for you :)
To register benchmarks, the 'scheduleForBenchmarking' mixin inserts a
shared static initializer into the module. If I have a module A and a
module B, that both depend on eachother, than
On 9/21/12 11:14 AM, Manu wrote:
On 21 September 2012 07:23, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
For a very simple reason: unless the algorithm under benchmark is
very long-running, max is completely useless, and it ruins average
Tobias Pankrath wrote:
I'm actually kinda surprised the feedback on this is rather
negative. I
thought running unit tests individually and printing
line/file/name was
requested quite often?
I want to have this. My workflow is: Run all tests0(run all). If
some fail, see if there might be
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-21 20:01, Johannes Pfau wrote:
I didn't think of setAssertHandler. My changes are perfectly compatible
with it.
IIRC setAssertHandler has the small downside that it's used for all
asserts, not only those used in unit tests? I'm not sure if that's a
drawback
On 9/21/12 2:49 PM, David Piepgrass wrote:
After extensive tests with a variety of aggregate functions, I can say
firmly that taking the minimum time is by far the best when it comes
to assessing the speed of a function.
Like others, I must also disagree in princple. The minimum sounds like a
David Piepgrass wrote:
However, what's truly insane IMHO is continuing to run a unittest
block after
it's already had a failure in it. Unless you have exceedingly
simplistic unit
tests, the failures after the first one mean pretty much _nothing_
and simply
clutter the results.
I
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 09/21/2012 03:04 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:
But it's nice to have source code and assembly side by side.
Jens
And very nice to have demangled names in assembly.
You can pipe your assembly code to ddemangle if there is some other tool
that missing demangling. I did
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/21/12 5:39 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-09-21 06:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
For a very simple reason: unless the algorithm under benchmark is very
long-running, max is completely useless, and it ruins average as well.
I may have completely
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:24:07 -0400
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
That works too, but doesn't warrant rants about how you haven't
learned how to use the fucking thing :)
It's *volume* controls, there doesn't need to be *anything* to learn.
Try listing out all the
Some random comments about std.benchmark based on its
documentation:
- It is very strange that the documentation of printBenchmarks
uses neither of the words average or minimum, and doesn't
say how many trials are done
Because all of those are irrelevant and confusing.
Huh? It's not
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:47:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 15:20:49 monarch_dodra wrote:
#3
The only thing I'm having an issue with is save. IMO, it is
exceptionally dangerous to have a PRNG be a ForwardRange: It
should only be saved if you have a damn
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 07:40:11 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
On 9/21/12, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
snip
Integrating this with dpaste would be aweee..sooome!
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/news/change-log---v0.82
Those are in plans for all compilers but atm, we
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:13:22 +0200
Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:09:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The saddest thing is that people are paying big bucks for this
kind of
enterprise code. It's one of those things that make me never
want to
pay
On 9/21/12 5:36 PM, David Piepgrass wrote:
Some random comments about std.benchmark based on its
documentation:
- It is very strange that the documentation of printBenchmarks
uses neither of the words average or minimum, and doesn't say
how many trials are done
Because all of those are
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:54:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 9/19/12 4:06 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
I don't see why `benchmark` takes (almost) all of its
parameters as
template parameters. It looks quite odd, seems unnecessary,
and (if I'm
not mistaken) makes certain use cases
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:38:06PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:13:22 +0200
Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:09:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The saddest thing is that people are paying big bucks for this
kind of
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:00:29 -0400
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 9/21/12 11:12 AM, Manu wrote:
On 21 September 2012 07:45, Andrei Alexandrescu
Currently std.benchmark does not expose raw results for the
sake of simplicity. It's easy to expose such, but
On 2012-09-20 21:34, Chris wrote:
Thanks a million, Jacob! I have just tested it with the latest version
of dmd and it works.
No problem. You can use DVM if you need the to keep the old version of
the compiler.
https://bitbucket.org/doob/dvm
--
/Jacob Carlborg
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
