On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:05:50PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Thursday, June 01, 2017 04:52:40 Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d-learn
[...]
> > See my link above to realdworldtech. Using SIMD can give good
> > results in micro-benchmarks but completely screw up
On Thursday, June 01, 2017 04:52:40 Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 June 2017 at 04:39:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 16:03:54 H. S. Teoh via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> >>
On Thursday, 1 June 2017 at 04:39:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 16:03:54 H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
If you're really trying to make it fast, there may be something
that you can do with SIMD. IIRC, Brian
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 23:03:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:13:04 H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> I did some digging around, and it seems that wc is using
>
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 16:03:54 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:13:04 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I did some digging around, and
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 15:44:51 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 13:27:24 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
Fine, by the numbers:
1. pi has the commas start at the wrong digit, and doesn't
follow the explicit instructions to use spaces as the
separator and a grouping of 5
If you still insist you are doing the right thing and all
others are wrong, let's agree to disagree on that, and please
just leave the original solution there by introducing two
versions.
Or we could just agree that the original was wrong and needs
fixing? That is obviously the right thing
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:20:53AM +0100, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
[...]
> However, I note here that the Chapel folk are taking a quite
> interesting view of algorithm implementation in the Benchmarks Game.
> They are totally eschewing "heroic implementations" such as all the
On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 17:22 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> […]
> performance in a significant way. But I thought this might be a
> useful
> tip for people who want to squeeze out the last drop of juice from
> their
> CPUs. ;-)
>
[…]
I have the beginnings of wc written in
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:13:04 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
> wrote:
> > I did some digging around, and it seems that wc is using glibc's
> > memchr, which is highly-optimized, whereas
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:13:04 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> I did some digging around, and it seems that wc is using glibc's memchr,
> which is highly-optimized, whereas std.algorithm.count just uses a
> simplistic loop. Which is strange, because I'm pretty sure somebody
>
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 19:22:18 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
You could also use string mixins.
Which will be more efficient then recursion.
I try to avoid string mixins unless I can't help it.
Nevertheless, I made an effort to try to get it to work and below
seems to be working. I still
I am glad to see this participation on this issue :)
The hints about trying another compiler and std.mmfile turned out
to be very effective.
Even this simple code is faster then my systems "wc -l" now:
void main() {
import std.stdio;
writeln(lcs("benchmark.dat"));
}
size_t
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 23:41:01 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 08:02:38PM +, Nitram via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
After reading
https://dlang.org/blog/2017/05/24/faster-command-line-tools-in-d/ , i was wondering how fast one can do a simple "wc -l" in D.
size_t
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 19:25:22 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 05/31/2017 08:50 PM, jmh530 wrote:
Note: I left out the function foo, but think of foo is to Foo
as tuple is to Tuple.
You should have included foo, in my opinion. I'm having trouble
figuring out what your code does. `process`
On 05/31/2017 08:50 PM, jmh530 wrote:
Note: I left out the function foo, but think of foo is to Foo as tuple
is to Tuple.
You should have included foo, in my opinion. I'm having trouble figuring
out what your code does. `process` instantiates foo with the field
names. I'd need the definition
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 18:50:27 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I have a struct that I am using like a Tuple, but I want to be
able to opIndex in a different way than Tuple's opIndex. I want
to be able to opIndex whatever is underlying the Tuple.
[...]
You could also use string mixins.
Which will
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 05:13:46PM -0700, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
[...]
> I could not make the D program come close to wc's performance when the
> data was piped from stdin.
[...]
Hmm. This is a particularly interesting case, because I adapted some of
my algorithms to handle
I have a struct that I am using like a Tuple, but I want to be
able to opIndex in a different way than Tuple's opIndex. I want
to be able to opIndex whatever is underlying the Tuple.
The code below works, but is kind of annoying because to extend
you have to keep adding static ifs. I want to
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 17:23:46 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 05/30/2017 11:50 PM, Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> How do you compile it? When I use ldc2 -O3 -release
-mcpu=bdver1 lc.d
> my code is even faster than wc
My bad: I'm not familiar with ldc's optimization options.
On 05/30/2017 11:50 PM, Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> How do you compile it? When I use ldc2 -O3 -release -mcpu=bdver1 lc.d
> my code is even faster than wc
My bad: I'm not familiar with ldc's optimization options. (I used -O3
but not -release) Now I get the same performance
On 05/31/2017 02:10 AM, Vasileios Anagnostopoulos wrote:
> compiler enforced @throws
For that to be possible, the compiler would have to see all definitions,
which is not possible with separate compilation.
Besides, I think the only meaning of @throws would be "may throw". If
so, since the
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 13:27:24 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
Fine, by the numbers:
1. pi has the commas start at the wrong digit, and doesn't
follow the explicit instructions to use spaces as the separator
and a grouping of 5
Can be solved by calling the function with a right set of
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 12:49:38 UTC, Oleksii wrote:
Hi everybody,
Perhaps this topic has been raised many times before, but I'm
going to go back to it anyways :-P
Are there any good reference materials and/or tutorials on
programming for iOS and Android in D? I wonder if anybody could
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 04:31:14 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 10:54:49 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
I ran into a Rosetta code solution in D that had obvious
errors. It's like the author or the previous editor wasn't
even trying to do it right, like a protest against how
Hi everybody,
Perhaps this topic has been raised many times before, but I'm
going to go back to it anyways :-P
Are there any good reference materials and/or tutorials on
programming for iOS and Android in D? I wonder if anybody could
share their story of success with D on mobile?
Thanks,
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 09:31:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
Thank you for the answers.
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 08:18:07 Vasileios Anagnostopoulos via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after reading various articles bout the "supposed" drawbacks of
> checked exceptions I started to have questions on @nothrow. Why
> there exists and not a @throws annotation enforced by the
>
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 08:52:51 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
This has come up several times over the years. For summary, go
to the search bar and type:
"checked exceptions" Walter
Do you realize that I do not talk about checked exceptions, only
a compiler enforced @throws and nothing
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 08:18:07 UTC, Vasileios
Anagnostopoulos wrote:
Hi,
after reading various articles bout the "supposed" drawbacks of
checked exceptions I started to have questions on @nothrow. Why
there exists and not a @throws annotation enforced by the
compiler? I understand
Hi,
after reading various articles bout the "supposed" drawbacks of
checked exceptions I started to have questions on @nothrow. Why
there exists and not a @throws annotation enforced by the
compiler? I understand that people are divided on checked
exceptions and each side has some valid
Dne 31.5.2017 v 02:13 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn napsal(a):
I could not make the D program come close to wc's performance when the
data was piped from stdin. A typical run with Daniel Kozak's program:
$ time cat deleteme.txt | wc -l
5062176
real0m0.086s
user0m0.068s
sys
32 matches
Mail list logo
