Visual D Build + DMD Bugginess = Bad

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:i9jr29$6af$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "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.
>

s/(2.5/1.7)/(1.7/2.5)

Too late in the day for math...