On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 20:27:59 UTC, Rémy Mouëza wrote:
I have made a fork of QTD, the Qt bindings for D, to get it to
work with dmd 2.066:
https://github.com/remy-j-a-moueza/qtd/tree/dmd-2.066
I have only made it to build on Linux (32 bit Ubuntu 14.04)
with nearly no testing.
I ha
I have made a fork of QTD, the Qt bindings for D, to get it to work with
dmd 2.066:
https://github.com/remy-j-a-moueza/qtd/tree/dmd-2.066
I have only made it to build on Linux (32 bit Ubuntu 14.04) with nearly
no testing.
I haven't updated the examples either, so lots of them are not comp
On 24 Aug 2014 16:26, "ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce" <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:16:43 +0100
> Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce
> wrote:
>
> > That's because floor isn't an intrinsic. The crippling speed issue
> > was the fact that floor co
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:16:43 +0100
Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> That's because floor isn't an intrinsic. The crippling speed issue
> was the fact that floor computed and returned at real precision.
i'm testing on x86, and the difference between 'call floorf' and
inlining is si
On 24 Aug 2014 14:09, "ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce" <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:51:10 +
> Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
> wrote:
>
> > 5. Using C's floor instead of D's floor. - very significant (why?)
> gcc/clang inlines floorf().
>
> gdc
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 02:22:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Well difference is that "internal" substring in the fully
qualified name that is much more likely to tell user he is
better to not touch it. However, original Kagamin proposal of
embedding it into module names themselves does address tha
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 14:09:03 UTC, Mike wrote:
I'm guessing the dependency is probably due to our
configure/build of GDC. I'm using Arch Linux 64's default GDC
from their repository. Perhaps it's configured in a way that
has these optimizations on by default. It probably should.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:09:02 +
Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> 64's default GDC
i think that 64-bit gcc/gdc turns sse optimisations on anyway, 'cause
there is no x86_64-capable CPUs without sse. and i'm on x86 arch.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 14:04:22 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:44:07 +
Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
p.s. what i did is this:
auto tm = Timer();
tm.start;
foreach (; 0..100) {
auto n2d = Noise2DContext(0);
foreach (i; 0..
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:44:07 +
Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
p.s. what i did is this:
auto tm = Timer();
tm.start;
foreach (; 0..100) {
auto n2d = Noise2DContext(0);
foreach (i; 0..100) {
foreach (y; 0..256) {
foreach (x; 0..256) {
auto v = n2d.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:44:07 +
Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
hm. for my "GDC 4.9.1. git HEAD" #6 has no effect at all.
p.s. it's unfair to specify "-msse3 -mfpmath=sse" for gcc and not for
gdc. gdc can use this flags too! (yeah, the effect is great: sse3
variant is ~2.5 times faster
Mike:
Then I add change only #6 above, and remove the excessive
function attributes,
Maybe I'll make a pull request for it. I don't think users
should have to decorate their code like a Christmas tree
I don't agree, function attributes are not excessive, they are
idiomatic in D.
Bye,
be
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 13:13:58 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:51:10 +
Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
ps.
6. This change
(https://github.com/nsf/pnoise/commit/baadfe20c7ae6aa900cb0e4188aa9d20bea95918)
with GDC has no effect at all.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:51:10 +
Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
ps.
> 6. This change
> (https://github.com/nsf/pnoise/commit/baadfe20c7ae6aa900cb0e4188aa9d20bea95918)
>
with GDC has no effect at all.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:51:10 +
Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> 5. Using C's floor instead of D's floor. - very significant (why?)
gcc/clang inlines floorf().
gdc generates calls to floor() in both cases, C floor() is just faster.
i.e. gdc fails to see that floor() can be converted t
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 09:24:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2014-08-24 10:53, bearophile wrote:
Dicebot:
In reddit thread one of commenters complained about D
performance and
linked this benchmark :
That benchmark found a small performance bug in ldc2, that I
reported,
but I think
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 09:24:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
The numbers in the benchmark has just been updated. DMD is
behind C. GDC is the fastest of all and LDC is ahead of Clang
but behind GCC. Seems pretty good to me.
D and C versions use different random number generators.
On 2014-08-24 10:53, bearophile wrote:
Dicebot:
In reddit thread one of commenters complained about D performance and
linked this benchmark :
That benchmark found a small performance bug in ldc2, that I reported,
but I think it's not yet fixed.
The numbers in the benchmark has just been upd
Dicebot:
In reddit thread one of commenters complained about D
performance and linked this benchmark :
That benchmark found a small performance bug in ldc2, that I
reported, but I think it's not yet fixed.
Rust has fixed a different smaller performance bug uncovered by
that benchmark.
By
19 matches
Mail list logo
