Honey, I shrunk the build times

[weaselcat via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 10:03:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 08:59:46 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> I wouldn't have thought that not moving to 2.067 would be a 
>> hold-up (there
>> is nothing in that release that blocks building DDMD as it is 
>> *now*).
>
> The biggest problem is that releasing a ddmd which is compiled 
> with dmd is unacceptable, because it incurs too large a 
> performance hit (~20% IIRC), so we need either ldc or gdc to be 
> at 2.067 so that we can use that to compile the release build 
> of ddmd.
>

after playing around with ddmd built with ldc, it's still a solid 
30-40% slower than current dmd(with optimization flags, obv.)

after profiling, it spends most of its time swapping and handling 
page faults. Enabling the GC seems to crash it, oh well. Maybe 
20-30% of the actual time is doing non-allocation related things.