assert semantic change proposal

via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Aug 4 04:36:02 PDT 2014


On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 19:47:27 UTC, David Bregman wrote:
> 4. Performance.
> Q4a. What level of performance increases are expected of this 
> proposal, for a representative sample of D programs?
> Q4b. Is there any threshold level of expected performance 
> required to justify this proposal? For example, if a study 
> determined that the average program could expect a speedup of 
> 0.01% or less, would that still be considered a good tradeoff 
> against the negatives?
> Q4c. Have any works or studies, empirical or otherwise, been 
> done to estimate the expected performance benefit? Is there any 
> evidence at all for a speedup sufficient to justify this 
> proposal?
> Q4d. When evaluating the potential negative effects of the 
> proposal on their codebase, D users may decide it is now too 
> risky to compile with -release. (Even if their own code has 
> been constructed with the new assert semantics in mind, the 
> libraries they use might not). Thus the effect of the proposal 
> would actually be to decrease the performance of their program 
> instead of increase it. Has this been considered in the 
> evaluation of tradeoffs?

I'd like to add:

Q4e: Have other alternatives been taken into consideration that 
could achieve the same performance gains, but in a safer way? I'm 
particularly thinking about whole program optimization. I suspect 
that WPO can prove most of what can only be assumed with asserts.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list