On Friday, 24 June 2016 at 09:09:49 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
What about adding a flag to DMD that overrides the default name
for the linker from `ld` to `ld.gold`?
Ping!
BTW, anybody tested LLD? They claim it's faster than gold
http://lld.llvm.org/NewLLD.html
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 19:12:23 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 08:13:01 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:46:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:38:25 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
dmd seems pretty fast to me.
add "-O -inline" and go to
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 08:13:01 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:46:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:38:25 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
dmd seems pretty fast to me.
add "-O -inline" and go to bed. ;-)
Went up to about 18s for a full rebuild of the
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:46:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:38:25 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
dmd seems pretty fast to me.
add "-O -inline" and go to bed. ;-)
Went up to about 18s for a full rebuild of the project and the
dub dependencies, I am ok with these times
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 06:10:20 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:46:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:38:25 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
dmd seems pretty fast to me.
add "-O -inline" and go to bed. ;-)
Nah, in my multi-KLOC project the difference
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:46:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:38:25 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
dmd seems pretty fast to me.
add "-O -inline" and go to bed. ;-)
Nah, in my multi-KLOC project the difference between debug (-g)
and release (-O -inline) is like 6 vs. 8
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 at 05:38:25 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
dmd seems pretty fast to me.
add "-O -inline" and go to bed. ;-)
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:56:26 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:25:13 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
So if linking is slow, then compilation is slow.
But, 1/3 second isn't slow... I don't feel compilation is slow
until it takes more like 5 seconds. Certainly,
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
Walter and we as a community often claim that dmd is fast as in
"compiles quickly". Go also claims this. Rust does not. They
even state that compilation speed is one of the big tasks they
are working on.
I found a comparison for D and
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 07:14:02 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Ubuntu/Debian you should use
sudo update-alternatives --config ld
to configure this.
Hmm, my prompt answers:
update-alternatives: error: no alternatives for ld
Doesn't this work anymore?
On Friday, 24 June 2016 at 09:09:49 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
What about adding a flag to DMD that overrides the default name
for the linker from `ld` to `ld.gold`?
Something like
dmd -linker=ld.gold ...
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 07:14:02 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
The GNU gold linker should be the default on newer
distributions.
It seems the non-gold version is the default, on my Ubuntu 16.04.
It would be nice to automate the step of choosing the fast
gold-version, so I don't have to bother
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 14:28:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Is there a way to tell? Thanks! -- Andrei
ld --version
I presume.
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 14:28:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 06/23/2016 03:14 AM, Nordlöw wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:20:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
You methodology is flawed. You are essentially measuring link
time
against the standard lib.
If you're sitting on Linux
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 17:57:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 06/23/2016 01:33 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 17:24:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On my Ubuntu, /usr/bin/ld -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld. What does
that mean?
-- Andrei
`ld --version` should
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 17:39:45 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
[kozzi@samuel ~]$ dmd -defaultlib=libphobos2.so a.d
[kozzi@samuel ~]$ time for t in {1..1000}; do ./a; done >
/dev/null
real0m7.187s
user0m4.470s
sys0m0.943s
[kozzi@samuel ~]$ dmd -defaultlib=libphobos2.a a.d
On 06/23/2016 01:33 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 17:24:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On my Ubuntu, /usr/bin/ld -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld. What does that mean?
-- Andrei
`ld --version` should clear that up. ;)
GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.26
So how do I
Dne 23.6.2016 v 19:24 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
On 06/23/2016 10:36 AM, ketmar wrote:
as of the linker itsef, on most systems /usr/bin/ld is just a symling to
either ld.bfd or ld.gold. we can include some notion in DMD
documentation regarding to that.
On my Ubuntu,
Dne 23.6.2016 v 16:39 ketmar via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 13:32:35 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Or on linux use ld.gold instead of ld.bfd. Using .so instead of .a
has another problem with speed. Application link against static
phobos lib is much faster than against
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 17:24:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On my Ubuntu, /usr/bin/ld -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld. What does
that mean? -- Andrei
`ld --version` should clear that up. ;)
— David
On 06/23/2016 10:36 AM, ketmar wrote:
as of the linker itsef, on most systems /usr/bin/ld is just a symling to
either ld.bfd or ld.gold. we can include some notion in DMD
documentation regarding to that.
On my Ubuntu, /usr/bin/ld -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld. What does that mean?
-- Andrei
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 13:32:35 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Or on linux use ld.gold instead of ld.bfd. Using .so instead of
.a has another problem with speed. Application link against
static phobos lib is much faster than against dynamic version.
either i didn't understood you right, or...
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 14:28:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The GNU gold linker should be the default on newer
distributions.
Is there a way to tell? Thanks! -- Andrei
it's not something dmd should enforce: it is the system setting
under user control. there may be many various
On 06/23/2016 03:14 AM, Nordlöw wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:20:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
You methodology is flawed. You are essentially measuring link time
against the standard lib.
If you're sitting on Linux make sure that you're using the GNU gold
linker (`ld.gold`) by default
Or on linux use ld.gold instead of ld.bfd. Using .so instead of .a has
another problem with speed. Application link against static phobos lib
is much faster than against dynamic version.
Dne 22.6.2016 v 21:33 ketmar via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:25:13 UTC,
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:20:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
You methodology is flawed. You are essentially measuring link
time against the standard lib.
If you're sitting on Linux make sure that you're using the GNU
gold linker (`ld.gold`) by default (`ld`).
On Ubuntu/Debian you should use
On 6/22/2016 7:28 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
RDMD 0:00:00.275884
DMD 0:00:00.311102
Since rdmd is just a script wrapper around dmd, it shouldn't actually be faster.
rdmd caches "script" programs, so could be faster.
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:56:26 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
D compile speed typically *scales* better than the competition.
Instead of chasing the 100ms in hello world, it tackles the
1ms of a real project.
Ok, but this is hard to test. It is not feasible to build the
same real
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:25:13 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:20:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
You methodology is flawed. You are essentially measuring link
time against the standard lib.
As someone else in the thread alluded to, people don't care
about the
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:25:13 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
So if linking is slow, then compilation is slow.
But, 1/3 second isn't slow... I don't feel compilation is slow
until it takes more like 5 seconds. Certainly, 1/3s is noticable
(if you do a hello world with printf instead of
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:25:13 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:20:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
You methodology is flawed. You are essentially measuring link
time against the standard lib.
As someone else in the thread alluded to, people don't care
about the
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 19:20:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
You methodology is flawed. You are essentially measuring link
time against the standard lib.
As someone else in the thread alluded to, people don't care about
the nuance, and it's not particularly important. Linking is part
of the
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
Walter and we as a community often claim that dmd is fast as in
"compiles quickly". Go also claims this. Rust does not. They
even state that compilation speed is one of the big tasks they
are working on.
From the general sentiment, I
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 14:11:12 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
...
Including scripting languages in that example is unfair as they
only lex the file.
Right away you can tell that "Hello World" is a poor example of
fast compile
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 14:28:28 UTC, qznc wrote:
Rust faster than Go? That still seems weird.
I like your overall benchmark. Measuring build times there
seems like a good idea.
I'm more surprised that Go is faster than D.
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
Destroy!
microbenchmarks sux. destruction sequence complete.
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 14:28:19 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
BTW this more measures linker speed than compiler. dmd -c -o-
just runs the compiler and skips filesystem output... it'd be
pretty fast and if there's similar options for other compilers
(gcc has -c too at least) it might be
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
RDMD 0:00:00.275884
DMD 0:00:00.311102
Since rdmd is just a script wrapper around dmd, it shouldn't
actually be faster.
BTW this more measures linker speed than compiler. dmd -c -o-
just runs the compiler and skips
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 14:28:19 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
RDMD 0:00:00.275884
DMD 0:00:00.311102
Since rdmd is just a script wrapper around dmd, it shouldn't
actually be faster.
BTW this more measures linker
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 14:11:12 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
...
Including scripting languages in that example is unfair as they
only lex the file.
Sure. Especially bash, which is always in RAM anyways. It shows
the possible
On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 13:46:50 UTC, qznc wrote:
...
Including scripting languages in that example is unfair as they
only lex the file.
Right away you can tell that "Hello World" is a poor example of
fast compile times because GCC is near the top; (as you probably
know) large Cpp
Walter and we as a community often claim that dmd is fast as in
"compiles quickly". Go also claims this. Rust does not. They even
state that compilation speed is one of the big tasks they are
working on.
From the general sentiment, I would expect that dmd performs on
the level of Go and Rust
43 matches
Mail list logo
