Why DMD is so slow?
Dave_member at pathlink.com
Tue Jun 3 17:49:33 PDT 2008
"Saaa" <empty at needmail.com> wrote in message
news:g240q6$14cm$1 at digitalmars.com...
>I meant GDC :/
> The original post reports a more than one minute runtime using DMD,
> I can't replicate that (with a reasonable cpu).
> Or did I miss something ..
I think you're on to something.
I get wildly different timings over several runs, and sometimes get a (much)
faster time _without_ the -O switch on a P4.
No way should that code be that much slower between DMD and GDC... It's a
bug. It's probably an alignment issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to see
incorrect results for DMD either.
The OP should post that code and the results as a bug. C++ code with DMC
probably wouldn't reproduce it because the D version is using the built-in
complex type, which is probably the heart of the bug.
>> I'm sure DMC is no faster than DMD here - the problem is the backend
>> optimizer. Many benchmarks (especially concerning floating point) have
>> shown this.
>> Saaa wrote:
>>> Did anybody verify DMC being faster?
>>> I don't have DMC, but my DMD code ran in 2.6s iso more than a minute.
>>>> As everyone has said, these are problems in DMD and DMC.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn