Comparing Parallelization in HPC with D, Chapel, and Go

[ixid via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 21 November 2014 at 22:57:44 UTC, Kapps wrote:
> On Friday, 21 November 2014 at 21:53:00 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> anon:
>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/3982638/A_Study_of_Successive_Over-relaxation_SOR_Method_Parallelization_Over_Modern_HPC_Languages
>>
>> Thank you for the link, it's very uncommon to see papers that 
>> use D. But where's the D/Go/Chapel source code? What's the 
>> compiler/version used? (When you do floating point benchmarks 
>> there's a huge difference between LDC2 and DMD).
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> The flags make it likely that DMD was used (-O -inline 
> -release). IIRC there were some problems with DMD that made it 
> not perform too well in these types of benchmarks that use 
> std.parallelism. Results would likely have been noticeably 
> better with GDC or LDC.

Whenever there is a benchmark like this the D community outlines 
a number of obvious to arcane speedups. Our house needs to be in 
order such that the obvious choice is at least competitive to the 
speed claims made for D. DMD particularly, while not optimisation 
focused, should improve its floating point speed and avoid 
surprising 80 bit floating point behaviours, or at least try to 
be surprising in a manner more in line with what users of other 
languages are used to.