tooling quality and some random rant

[retard]

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:10:47 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

> retard wrote:
> 
>> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:44:43 +0200, so wrote:
>> 
>>>> Unfortunately DMC is always out of the question because the
>>>> performance is 10-20 (years) behind competition, fast compilation
>>>> won't help it.
>>> 
>>> Can you please give a few links on this?
>> 
>> What kind of proof you need then? Just take some existing piece of code
>> with high performance requirements and compile it with dmc. You lose.
>> 
>> http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c++.perfometer/37
>> http://lists.boost.org/boost-testing/2005/06/1520.php
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/c++/chat/66.html
>> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/184405450
>> 
>> 
> That is ridiculous, have you even bothered to read your own links? In
> some of them dmc wins, others the differences are minimal and for all of
> them dmc is king in compilation times.

DMC doesn't clearly win in any of the tests and these are merely some 
naive examples I found by doing 5 minutes of googling. Seriously, take a 
closer look - the gcc version is over 5 years old. Nobody even bothers 
doing dmc benchmarks anymore, dmc is so out of the league. I repeat, this 
was about performance of the generated binaries, not compile times.

Like I said: take some existing piece of code with high performance 
requirements and compile it with dmc. You lose. I honestly don't get what 
I need to prove here. Since you have no clue, presumably you aren't even 
using dmc and won't be considering it.

Just take a look at the command line parameters:
-[0|2|3|4|5|6]  8088/286/386/486/Pentium/P6 code

There are no arch specific optimizations for PIII, Pentium 4, Pentium D, 
Core, Core 2, Core i7, Core i7 2600K, and similar kinds of products from 
AMD. No mention of auto-vectorization or whole program and instruction 
level optimizations the very latest GCC and LLVM are now slowly adopting.