I'm getting faster execution on java thank dmd, gdc beats it
though.
...although, what this topic really provides is a reason for me
to get more RAM for my next laptop. How much do you people run
with? I had to scale the java down to 300 million to avoid dying
with 4G memory.
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 12:31:47 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
Btw. I just noticed small issue with D vs. java, you start
messure in D before allocation, but in case of Java after
allocation
Here is the java result for parallel processing after moving
the start time as the first line in m
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 12:26:28 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
And what about single threaded version?
Just ran the single thread examples after I moved time start
before array allocation, thanks for that, good catch. Still
better results in Java:
- java:
21 secs, 612 ms
- with std.math:
Forgot to mention that I pushed my changes to github.
Btw. I just noticed small issue with D vs. java, you start
messure in D before allocation, but in case of Java after
allocation
Here is the java result for parallel processing after moving the
start time as the first line in main. Still best result:
4 secs, 50 ms average
And what about single threaded version?
Just ran the single thread examples after I moved time start
before array allocation, thanks for that, good catch. Still
better results in Java:
- java:
21 secs, 612 ms
- with std.math:
dmd: 23 secs, 994 ms
ldc: 31 secs, 668 ms
gdc: 52 secs, 576 ms
-
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:16:49 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:16:05 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:05:19 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
Hi Guys,
First of all, thank you all for responding so quick, it is so
nice to see D having such an act
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 10:20:04 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
That's very different to my results.
I see no important difference between ldc and dmd when using
std.math, but when using core.stdc.math ldc halves its time
where dmd only manages to get to ~80%
I checked again today and the r
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 10:39:13 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
These multi-threaded benchmarks can be very sensitive to their
environment, you should try running it with nice -20 and do
multiple passes to get a vague idea of the variability in the
result. Also, it's important to minimise th
These multi-threaded benchmarks can be very sensitive to their
environment, you should try running it with nice -20 and do
multiple passes to get a vague idea of the variability in the
result. Also, it's important to minimise the number of other
running processes.
I did not use the nice par
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 10:20:04 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
That's very different to my results.
I see no important difference between ldc and dmd when using
std.math, but when using core.stdc.math ldc halves its time
where dmd only manages to get to ~80%
I checked again today and the r
That's very different to my results.
I see no important difference between ldc and dmd when using
std.math, but when using core.stdc.math ldc halves its time
where dmd only manages to get to ~80%
I checked again today and the results are interesting, on my pc I
don't see any difference betwe
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 07:26:27 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
That's very different to my results.
I see no important difference between ldc and dmd when using
std.math, but when using core.stdc.math ldc halves its time
where dmd only manages to get to ~80%
What CPU do you have? On my I
That's very different to my results.
I see no important difference between ldc and dmd when using
std.math, but when using core.stdc.math ldc halves its time
where dmd only manages to get to ~80%
What CPU do you have? On my Intel Core i3 I have similar
experience as Iov Gherman, but on my A
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 18:27:48 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:50:20 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:28:12 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
So, I did some more testing with the one processing in
paralel:
--- dmd:
4 secs, 977 ms
--- dmd with
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 18:23:29 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 18:00:18 UTC, aldanor wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:28:12 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
So, I did some more testing with the one processing in
paralel:
--- dmd:
4 secs, 977 ms
--- dmd with fla
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:50:20 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:28:12 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
So, I did some more testing with the one processing in paralel:
--- dmd:
4 secs, 977 ms
--- dmd with flags: -O -release -inline -noboundscheck:
4 secs, 635 ms
--- ld
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 18:00:18 UTC, aldanor wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:28:12 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
So, I did some more testing with the one processing in paralel:
--- dmd:
4 secs, 977 ms
--- dmd with flags: -O -release -inline -noboundscheck:
4 secs, 635 ms
--- ldc:
6
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:28:12 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
So, I did some more testing with the one processing in paralel:
--- dmd:
4 secs, 977 ms
--- dmd with flags: -O -release -inline -noboundscheck:
4 secs, 635 ms
--- ldc:
6 secs, 271 ms
--- gdc:
10 secs, 439 ms
I also pushed the ne
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:28:12 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
So, I did some more testing with the one processing in paralel:
--- dmd:
4 secs, 977 ms
--- dmd with flags: -O -release -inline -noboundscheck:
4 secs, 635 ms
--- ldc:
6 secs, 271 ms
--- gdc:
10 secs, 439 ms
I also pushed the ne
So, I did some more testing with the one processing in paralel:
--- dmd:
4 secs, 977 ms
--- dmd with flags: -O -release -inline -noboundscheck:
4 secs, 635 ms
--- ldc:
6 secs, 271 ms
--- gdc:
10 secs, 439 ms
I also pushed the new bash scripts to the git repository.
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:16:05 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:05:19 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
Hi Guys,
First of all, thank you all for responding so quick, it is so
nice to see D having such an active community.
As I said in my first post, I used no other para
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 17:05:19 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
Hi Guys,
First of all, thank you all for responding so quick, it is so
nice to see D having such an active community.
As I said in my first post, I used no other parameters to dmd
when compiling because I don't know too much abo
Hi Guys,
First of all, thank you all for responding so quick, it is so
nice to see D having such an active community.
As I said in my first post, I used no other parameters to dmd
when compiling because I don't know too much about dmd
compilation flags. I can't wait to try the flags Daniel s
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 10:40:45 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 10:35:52 UTC, Daniel Kozak via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I run Arch Linux on my PC. I compiled D programs using
dmd-2.066 and used no compile arguments (dmd prog.d)
You should try use some argume
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 11:11:07 UTC, aldanor wrote:
Just tried it out myself (E5 Xeon / Linux):
D version: 19.64 sec (avg 3 runs)
import core.stdc.math;
void main() {
double s = 0;
foreach (i; 1 .. 1_000_000_000)
s += log(i);
}
// build fla
On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 10:12 +, Iov Gherman via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> […]
> - D: 24 secs, 32 ms.
> - Java: 20 secs, 881 ms.
> - C: 21 secs
> - Go: 37 secs
>
Without the source codes and the commands used to create and run, it
is impossible to offer constructive criticism of the results
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 10:35:52 UTC, Daniel Kozak via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I run Arch Linux on my PC. I compiled D programs using
dmd-2.066 and used no compile arguments (dmd prog.d)
You should try use some arguments -O -release -inline
-noboundscheck
and maybe try use gdc or
> I run Arch Linux on my PC. I compiled D programs using dmd-2.066
> and used no compile arguments (dmd prog.d)
You should try use some arguments -O -release -inline -noboundscheck
and maybe try use gdc or ldc should help with performance
can you post your code in all languages somewhere? I lik
On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 10:12:52 UTC, Iov Gherman wrote:
Now, can anyone explain why this program ran faster in Java? I
ran both programs multiple times and the results were always
close to this execution times.
Can the implementation of log() function be the reason for a
slower execut
Hi everybody,
I am a java developer and used C/C++ only for some home projects
so I never mastered native programming.
I am currently learning D and I find it fascinating. I was
reading the documentation about std.parallelism and I wanted to
experiment a bit with the example "Find the logari
31 matches
Mail list logo
