Benchmarking suite

[qznc via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 at 09:56:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> I think the better approach is to write up the same algorithms 
> in a high level fashion (using generic templates on both sides) 
> from the ground up using the same constructs and measure the 
> ability to optimize.

That is a good idea, if you want to measure compiler 
optimizations. Ideally g++ and gdc should always yield the same 
performance then?

However, it does answer the wrong question imho.

Suppose you consider using D with C/C++ as the stable 
alternative. D lures you with its high level features. However, 
you know that you will have to really optimize some hot spots 
sooner or later. Will D impose a penalty on you and C/C++ could 
have provided better performance?

Walter argues that there is no technical reason why D should be 
slower than C/C++. My experience with the benchmarks says, there 
seem to be such penalties. For example, there is no 
__builtin_ia32_cmplepd or __builtin_ia32_movmskpd like gcc has.