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 such
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++ (Appl
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 a
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 de
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
https://dlang.org
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 core.stdc.math.l
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 in
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 digits
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 l
