On Thursday, 6 September 2012 at 00:00:31 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
I'd like it if you could add some instrumentation to see what
accounts for the time difference. I presume they both use the
same D source code.
Maybe that performance difference comes from the sum of some
Walter Bright:
No code gen changes whatsoever were needed.
In that case I think I didn't specify what subsystem of the D
compiler was not good enough, I have just shown a performance
difference. The division was slow, regardless of the cause. This
is what's important for the final C/D
On 9/6/2012 4:30 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
In addition to Walter's response, it is very rare for advanced compiler
optimisations to make 2x difference on any non-trivial code. Not
impossible, but it's definitely suspicious.
I love trying to explain to people our debug builds are too slow
Am 06.09.2012 01:10, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 9/5/2012 4:03 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
GC collection times:
DMD GC Version: 8.9 ms
GDC GC Version: 4.1 ms
I'd like it if you could add some instrumentation to see what accounts
for the time difference. I presume they both use the same D source
The problem with intstrumentation is, that I can not recompile
druntime for the MinGW GDC, as this is not possible with the
binary release of MinGW GDC and I did not go thorugh the effort
to setup the whole build.
I'm open to suggestions though how I could profile the GC
without recompiling
On Friday, 8 June 2012 at 15:48:35 UTC, Alfredo Di Napoli wrote:
Hello there,
this is my first post here whatsoever :)
My name is Alfredo and I'm a 24-year-old just-graduated
computer science guy from Rome, Italy. I've been fiddling with
D lately, and I decided to contribute to the language
Am 06.09.2012 15:30, schrieb ponce:
The problem with intstrumentation is, that I can not recompile
druntime for the MinGW GDC, as this is not possible with the binary
release of MinGW GDC and I did not go thorugh the effort to setup the
whole build.
I'm open to suggestions though how I could
I just tried profiling it with Very Sleepy but basically it
only tells me for both versions that most of the time is spend
in gcx.fullcollect.
Just that the GDC version spends less time in gcx.fullcollect
then the DMD version.
As I can not rebuild druntime with GDC it will be quite hard to
On Sunday, 2 September 2012 at 22:59:00 UTC, bearophile wrote:
nazriel:
What do you mean by proportional font?
A proportional font has character glyphs of different width,
like Arial, where a i is takes less horizontal space than W.
Bye,
bearophile
Ach, will be fixed soon :)
At the
On 9/6/2012 10:50 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I just tried profiling it with Very Sleepy but basically it only tells me for
both versions that most of the time is spend in gcx.fullcollect.
Just that the GDC version spends less time in gcx.fullcollect then the DMD
version.
Even so, that in
On 09/06/2012 01:39 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
http://science.webhostinggeeks.com/pregled-d
Awesome! :)
Ali
P.S. Sorry to hijack this thread; that page and many others have been
translated to Turkish as well:
http://ddili.org/tanitim/
On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Benjamin Thaut c...@benjamin-thaut.de wrote:
Am 06.09.2012 15:30, schrieb ponce:
The problem with intstrumentation is, that I can not recompile
druntime for the MinGW GDC, as this is not possible with the binary
release of MinGW GDC and I did not go thorugh the
On Thursday, 6 September 2012 at 18:48:59 UTC, nazriel wrote:
On Sunday, 2 September 2012 at 22:59:00 UTC, bearophile wrote:
nazriel:
What do you mean by proportional font?
A proportional font has character glyphs of different width,
like Arial, where a i is takes less horizontal space
13 matches
Mail list logo
