narrowed down the problem area

[bearophile]

K. Wilson:
>Seems like the LLVM backend is doing well (though I have seen other timings where g++4.x beats llvm-g++4.x, so take from this what you will).<

Very nice. On Win in 100% of my programs and benchmarks llvm-gcc 2.3 turns out slower or quite slower than GCC 4.3.1, but the ratio is never bigger than about 2 times slower. So it's curious to see an example of the opposite.


>I just thought I would let people know that ldc is coming along and performs quite well, at this point.<

I have read it compiles all Tango tests, this is a lot, because Tango is large and complex.

--------

The LDC docs say:

>One thing the D spec isn't clear about at all is how asm blocks mixed with normal D code (for example code between two asm blocks) interacts.<
>Currently 'naked' in D is treated as a compile time error in LDC. Reason for this is that LLVM does not support directly controlling prologue/epilogue generation. Also the documentation from the D spec on this topic is extremely limited and doesn't mention anything about how normal D code in a naked function works. In particular local (stack) variables are unclear, also accessing named parameters etc.<

I think Walter has more or less said he's interested in seeing LDC grow, so I presume such things can be asked to him, and he can give some answers that can help LDC a lot.

Bye,
bearophile