[Issue 2331] Enum hashes many times slower than normal hashes

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331

Iain Buclaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P2  |P3

--

[Issue 2331] Enum hashes many times slower than normal hashes

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331

Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|unspecified |D2

--

[Issue 2331] Enum hashes many times slower than normal hashes

[d-bugmail]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2331


Mitch Hayenga mitch.haye...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mitch.haye...@gmail.com


--- Comment #5 from Mitch Hayenga mitch.haye...@gmail.com 2010-09-22 10:22:20 
PDT ---
I recently hit this performance issue myself while trying to use a lookup
table, rather than branching on logic for a function.  It can be avoided by
declaring the field as invariant, but I had originally used Enum as thats one
of the ways suggested by TDPL for doing CTFE.


pseudocode:

bool[256] generate_lookup_table(); // function declaration

// Performance = terrible here
enum lookup_as_enum = generate_lookup_table();

// Performance = great here
invariant lookup_as_enum = generate_lookup_table();

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 2331] Enum hashes many times slower than normal hashes

[d-bugmail]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2331


bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc


--- Comment #7 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-09-22 11:40:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
 Walter, don't you think your users are finally annoyed enough
 so that you could look into fixing it?

Be more gentle, please.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---