Visual D Build + DMD Bugginess = Bad

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Tue Oct 19 03:13:57 PDT 2010


"Denis Koroskin" <2korden at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vks9nlljo7cclz at korden-pc...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:53:45 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Denis Koroskin" <2korden at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.vksxyn15o7cclz at korden-pc...
>>> I don't think it has  THAT big of impact, but I'll try to recompile with
>>> all the cores disabled.
>>
>> Thanks, that'll be interesting.
>>
>> I did go ahead and re-time the compile. Apparently I must have been
>> remembering it wrong, because this time it only took 1 min 20 sec (and 
>> this
>> was with a ton of stuff running - bunch of misc apps, FF2 with 20 tabs, 
>> an
>> HDD SMART monitor, a torrent manager and a bunch of other servers (but no
>> clients connected)). But that's still quite a lot of time to compile a D
>> app, even for my machine.
>>
>> I also tried grabbing the latest ddmd, rebooted, killed all non-essential
>> processes, and tried that way. Got it down to just slightly under one
>> minute.
>>
>> I thought about maybe it being a limited-memory issue (remembering that 
>> dmd
>> never frees anything until it's done - or is that just CTFE?), but I 
>> don't
>> think that's it - the highest memory usage it ever got was about 200MB, 
>> and
>> I have 1GB, and it still took a whole minute with almost everything 
>> besides
>> XP shut down, so I'm not sure that was it. (I could have sworn I had 2GB 
>> at
>> one point, but I think I probably cannibalized one of the sticks when I
>> built my linux box - not that that's really relevant ;) )
>>
>> FWIW, this is all with compiling the just the debug version of ddmd only.
>> Ie, not including building the release version or the one-time initial 
>> setup
>> of building dmd.lib.
>>
>>
>
> It's 8.6 seconds for a single cores, 8.3s for all 4 cores (Core2 Quad 
> Q8300 @ 2.5Ghz, Windows).

Hmm... that does make my situation seem odd then. Mine's a 1.7 GHz Celeron, 
so a little more than half the clock speed of yours. Of course, I'm well 
aware that my older architecture and less cache make mine slower than 
(2.5/1.7) of your speed, but that still seems like a strangely large 
difference.

I wonder if maybe RAM speed could account for it.




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list