On Friday, 9 March 2018 at 13:56:33 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
- I would expect the D `Complex!double` case to work faster
than the `real` one. Why is it the other way around? [I can
accept (and use) D with Complex!real running 1/3 the speed of
C++ (but with increased accuracy), but I'd also
Please bear with me, this is a long question!
To explain, I'm a scientist considering switching from C++ to D,
but before I do, I need to ensure that I can:
- achieve execution speeds comparable to C++ (for the same
accuracy; I can accept a slight slowdown, call it 30%, to get a
few more
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 10:28:23 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 10:10:49 UTC, J-S Caux wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 08:04:36 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
auto log(T)(Complex!T x) {
import std.math : log;
return Complex!T(log(abs(x)), arg(x));
}
Yes
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 08:04:36 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 07:42:37 UTC, J-S Caux wrote:
Simple question: how do I get the log of a complex number?
If I try the simple
logtest = log(complex(1.0, 2.0))
I get the compiler error
Error: function
Simple question: how do I get the log of a complex number?
If I try the simple
logtest = log(complex(1.0, 2.0))
I get the compiler error
Error: function core.stdc.math.log(double x) is not callable
using argument types (Complex!double)
Some basic functions are described in
On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 at 07:12:57 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
On 2018-03-05 20:11:06 +, H. S. Teoh said:
Walter has been adamant that we should always compute
std.math.*
functions with the `real` type, which on x86 maps to the
non-IEEE 80-bit
floats. However, 80-bit floats have been
On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 09:48:49 UTC, Uknown wrote:
Depending on your platform, the size of `double` could be
different between C++ and D. Could you check that the size and
precision are indeed the same?
Also, benchmark method is just as important as benchmark code.
Did you use DMD or LDC
On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 05:40:09 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 05/03/2018 6:35 PM, J-S Caux wrote:
I'm considering shifting a large existing C++ codebase into D
(it's a scientific code making much use of functions like
atan, log etc).
I've compared the raw speed of atan between C++
I'm considering shifting a large existing C++ codebase into D
(it's a scientific code making much use of functions like atan,
log etc).
I've compared the raw speed of atan between C++ (Apple LLVM
version 7.3.0 (clang-703.0.29)) and D (dmd v2.079.0, also ldc2
1.7.0) by doing long loops of
