foreach thoughts

[Manu]

On 15 January 2014 12:22, David Nadlinger <code at klickverbot.at> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 15 January 2014 at 01:42:07 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> Right, thanks for that.
>> I'm quite surprised by how bad that turned out actually, and with LDC,
>> which is usually the best at optimising that sort of thing.
>> Need to do some intensive experimentation... but this is a bit concerning.
>>
>
> GCC might do some loop merging, I haven't checked. It's just that this
> pattern doesn't tend to appear too much in traditional C/C++ code (after
> all, who splits up their loops into two parts just for fun?), so it could
> be that the LLVM people just never really bothered to write a pass to merge
> single loops that have been split (as opposed to classical loop fusion,
> where the loop ranges are the same, but the operations performed/target
> data different).
>
> Maybe it would be possible to implement something like this fairly easily
> using the existing LLVM loop analyses though.


Okay. As long as the problem is understood and a solution seems realistic.
The closure allocation is also an important problem to fix, but that one's
been on the list a long time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140115/9fc03302/attachment-0001.html>