On 8/18/2015 2:33 PM, deadalnix wrote:
There is none. There is a ton of 0.5% one that adds up to the 30% difference.
I regard a simple pattern that nets 0.5% as quite a worthwhile win. That's only
60 of those to make up the difference.
If you've got any that you know of that would net 0.5%
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 02:25:34PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/18/2015 1:47 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Realistically, D does not have the man power required to reach the
same level of optimization, and have many higher impact task to spend
that manpower on.
dmd also does a
On 8/18/2015 2:57 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
From the little that I've seen of dmd's output, it seems that it's
rather weak in the areas of inlining and loop unrolling / refactoring.
DMD does not do loop unrolling. I've thought about it many times, but just never
did it.
In
On 8/18/2015 2:32 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
However true that may be in general, those almost certainly aren't the reasons
why ddmd benchmarks 30% slower than dmd. I would suspect that particular speed
difference is heavily backend-dependent.
That's exactly why I started this thread.
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:53:43 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:45:42 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
If you want D to have a GC, you have to design the language
around having a GC. Right now, D could be likened to using C++
with Boehm.
The irony is that most GC-related complaints
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:55:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2015 2:33 PM, deadalnix wrote:
There is none. There is a ton of 0.5% one that adds up to the
30% difference.
I regard a simple pattern that nets 0.5% as quite a worthwhile
win. That's only 60 of those to make up the
On 8/18/2015 2:57 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
like eliminating redundant loads
Turns out you were right.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4906
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 22:01:16 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:53:43 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:45:42 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
If you want D to have a GC, you have to design the language
around having a GC. Right now, D could be likened to using
C++
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 01:52:56 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 22:01:16 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:53:43 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:45:42 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
If you want D to have a GC, you have to design the language
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 19:02:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2015 5:37 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
IIRC, I have had three releases affected by
optimization/inlining DMD bugs (two
of Digger and one of RABCDAsm). These do not speak well for D
when end-users ask
me what the cause of
On 2015-08-18 20:59, Walter Bright wrote:
There is some potential there, but since a static compiler doesn't do
runtime profiling, some sort of hinting scheme would have to be invented.
There's profile guided optimization, which LLVM supports.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:25:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2015 1:47 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Realistically, D does not have the man power required to reach
the same level of
optimization, and have many higher impact task to spend that
manpower on.
dmd also does a sludge of
On 8/18/2015 1:24 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
The specific bugs in question have
been fixed, but that doesn't change the general problem.
The reason we have regression tests is to make sure things that are fixed stay
fixed. Codegen bugs also always had the highest priority.
Being
On 8/18/2015 2:25 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
I would like to add that fixing the regression does not make it go away. Even
though it's fixed in git, and even after the fix ships with a new DMD release,
there is still a D version out there that has the bug, and that will never
change until the
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:26:43 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:18:34 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
D has far, far bigger performance problems that dmd's backend.
However true that may be in general, those almost certainly
aren't the reasons why ddmd benchmarks 30% slower than
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
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 21:48:13 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
D's current GC could see improvements, but it will never ever
catch up to the GC of any other major language without changes
to the language itself.
There's been lots and lots and lots of forum discussions in the
past few years of how
On 8/18/2015 5:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2015 5:07 PM, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
Sorry to repeat myself, but isn't https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11821
such an example?
Yes, absolutely.
I remarked it as an enhancement request.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 03:25:38PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/18/2015 2:57 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
From the little that I've seen of dmd's output, it seems that it's
rather weak in the areas of inlining and loop unrolling /
refactoring.
DMD does not
On 8/18/2015 4:05 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Maybe when I get some free time this week, I could look at the
disassembly of one of my programs again to give some specific examples.
Please do.
On 8/18/2015 3:07 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I was backing up your rationale, even if I disagree with your
prioritizing these concerns at this stage of the dmd = ddmd transition.
I want to move to ddmd right now, and I mean right now. But it's stalled,
awaiting Daniel and Martin.
On 8/18/2015 3:17 PM, welkam wrote:
People are lazy and if it takes more than one click people wont use it. Just
like unitesting everyone agrees that its good to write them but nobody does
that. When you put unitesting in compiler more people are writing tests. PGO is
awesome, but it needs to be
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 23:30:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2015 4:05 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Maybe when I get some free time this week, I could look at the
disassembly of one of my programs again to give some specific
examples.
Please do.
Sorry to repeat
On 8/18/2015 5:07 PM, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
Sorry to repeat myself, but isn't https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11821
such an example?
Yes, absolutely.
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 10:45:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
...
3. data flow analysis optimizations like constant propagation,
dead code elimination, register allocation, loop invariants,
etc.
Modern compilers (including dmd) do all three.
So if you're comparing code generated by
On 8/18/2015 6:01 AM, ponce wrote:
One thing that was striking to me is that it by and large it doesn't use PUSH,
POP, and SETcc. Actually I don't remember such an instruction being emitted by
it.
And indeed using PUSH/POP/SETcc in assembly were often slower than the
alternative. Which is
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 15:45:25 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 15:22:15 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Also, soon the dmd compiler backend will be the only one
written in D. :)
Soon the front end will be written in D. And the front end is
shared among dmd, gdc, ldc. Walter
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 15:22:15 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Also, soon the dmd compiler backend will be the only one
written in D. :)
Soon the front end will be written in D. And the front end is
shared among dmd, gdc, ldc. Walter has expressed a desire to port
the back end to D, too [1]. But
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 12:37:37 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
I think stability of the DMD backend is a goal of much higher
value than the performance of the code it emits. DMD is never
going to match the code generation quality of LLVM and GCC,
which have had many, many man-years
301 - 329 of 329 matches
Mail list logo
