Port a benchmark to D?

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 04.06.2011 16:54, schrieb dsimcha:
> On 6/4/2011 9:15 AM, bearophile wrote:
>> Walter:
>>
>>> It would be nice to figure out what is different. Try using the coverage
>>> analyzer and profiler for starters!
>>
>> There are little differences and inefficiencies here and there, but in
>> the second D version I think most of the performance difference over
>> the C++ code is caused by the GC. I will do some tests.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
> 
> That's probably right, for two reasons:
> 
> 1.  Other than the GC, D doesn't have any "hidden cost" features that
> would explain it being slower than C++ for similarly written code.
> 

Besides better optimization by the compiler,
see Adam Ruppe's post, 3 posts up:

> On my computer, the D version ran slightly faster (56 seconds vs 63s >
for C++) without optimizations turned on.
>
> With optimizations turned on, C++ took a nice lead (28 seconds vs 53
> seconds for D).

So it seems like it's not all the GCs fault.

> 2.  A few posts back, it was noted that DMD2.053, which includes my GC
> optimizations, was substantially faster than 2.052, which doesn't.