On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I've been looking at ways to optimize the D lexer's operation using SIMD
Brian, i just found the lexer code repo (and fixed the broken code
link on the wiki), but the review thread on the wiki looks
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 12:01:00 UTC, Tom Browder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I've been looking at ways to optimize the D lexer's operation
using SIMD
Brian, i just found the lexer code repo (and
Please no. See: javax
Spelling out 'experimental' is probably the best, for all those
reasons
already stated.
What's wrong with javax?
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 14:59:55 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
Please no. See: javax
Spelling out 'experimental' is probably the best, for all
those reasons
already stated.
What's wrong with javax?
The fact that it started as same experimental package but stuff
there never got moved to
Am 13.06.2014 16:59, schrieb Dejan Lekic:
Please no. See: javax
Spelling out 'experimental' is probably the best, for all those
reasons
already stated.
What's wrong with javax?
experimental is 100% clear and simple to understand beeing evil
javax was interpreted as eXtendet or eXtra or
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:23:59 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 6/9/14, 2:15 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
I am more for stdx, which is what some developers already use as
package name for experimental stuff.
The way I see it is instead of
On 10 June 2014 07:26, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:23:59 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On 6/9/14, 2:15 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
I am more for stdx, which is what some developers
On 6/10/14, 3:57 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I agree all the way with std.experimental as the package name. Though
I might throw in an alternative argument to stdx and instead promote
unsafe.* or std.unsafe. ;-)
The only issue I see with *.unsafe.* is that it sounds related to
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:31:59 -0400, David Gileadi gilea...@nspmgmail.com
wrote:
On 6/10/14, 3:57 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I agree all the way with std.experimental as the package name. Though
I might throw in an alternative argument to stdx and instead promote
unsafe.* or
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 23:50:40 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
SIMD reduces execution time by 5.15% with DMD.
Compiling the non-SIMD code with GDC reduces execution time by
42.39%.
So... There's that.
Changing the code generator to output a set of if statements that
implements a binary search
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 10:57:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 21:12:25 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I've been looking at ways to optimize the D lexer's operation
using SIMD instructions. I'm not yet sure if I'll need to
change the lexer generator's API to do this. I'm going
On 6/9/14, 2:15 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 10:57:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 21:12:25 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I've been looking at ways to optimize the D lexer's operation using
SIMD instructions. I'm not yet sure if I'll need to change the
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I am more for stdx, which is what some developers already use as package
name for experimental stuff.
Please no. See: javax
Spelling out 'experimental' is probably the best, for all those
Am 09.06.2014 22:21, schrieb Brian Schott:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 23:50:40 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
SIMD reduces execution time by 5.15% with DMD.
Compiling the non-SIMD code with GDC reduces execution time by
42.39%.
So... There's that.
Changing the code generator to output a set of if
Am 07.06.2014 01:50, schrieb Brian Schott:
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 00:33:23 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
Implementing some SIMD code just in the lexWhitespace function
causes a drop in total lexing time of roughly 3.7%. This looks
promising so far, so I'm going to implement similar code in
On 06/08/2014 08:21 PM, dennis luehring wrote:
thats why im always puzzled when people start to optimze algorithms
based on DMD results - currently one should always compare any results
before optimization with GDC/LDC
I second that, dmd results are easily misleading as you often optimize
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:57:35 +
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 21:12:25 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I've been looking at ways to optimize the D lexer's operation
using SIMD instructions. I'm not yet sure if I'll need to
change the
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 00:33:23 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
Implementing some SIMD code just in the lexWhitespace function
causes a drop in total lexing time of roughly 3.7%. This looks
promising so far, so I'm going to implement similar code in
lexStringLiteral, lexSlashStarComment,
I've been meaning to mention this, but I use
std.experimental.lexer in a code generation tool for our project;
it's worked well so far, and I'd happily recommend its use.
Looking forward to further updates.
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 21:12:25 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I've been looking at ways to optimize the D lexer's operation
using SIMD instructions. I'm not yet sure if I'll need to
change the lexer generator's API to do this. I'm going to wait
until I have my proof-of-concept code and some
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 21:12:25 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I've been looking at ways to optimize the D lexer's operation
using SIMD instructions. I'm not yet sure if I'll need to
change the lexer generator's API to do this. I'm going to wait
until I have my proof-of-concept code and some
21 matches
Mail list logo
