Disappointing performance from DMD/Phobos

kinke noone at nowhere.com
Tue Jun 26 19:07:46 UTC 2018

On Tuesday, 26 June 2018 at 17:38:42 UTC, Manu wrote:
> I know, but it's still the reference compiler, and it should at 
> least
> to a reasonable job at the kind of D code that it's 
> *recommended* that
> users write.

I get your point, but IMO it's all about efficient allocation of 
the manpower we have. Spending it on improving the 
inliner/optimizer or even adding ARM codegen as was recently 
suggested IIRC would be very unwise IMO; LDC and GDC are already 
there (and way beyond ;)), so I consider fixing bugs, tightening 
the language spec, improving tooling, druntime/Phobos, C++ 
interop (thx for your recent contributions there!) and so forth 
*way* more important than improving DMD codegen.
Not too long ago (closed backend), DMD as reference compiler 
wasn't provided by Linux package managers (but LDC and GDC were), 
so it's not like D would automatically imply DMD. I don't recall 
ever being interested in whether a compiler for some language was 
the 'reference' one or not.

> I'm using unreleased 2.081, which isn't in LDC yet.

We're (inofficially) at 2.081-beta.2 and fully green except for a 
very minor OSX debuginfo thingy, see 
https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/2752. So expect a 1.11 
beta as soon as 2.081 is released.

> Also, LDC seems to have more problems with debuginfo than DMD.
> Once LDC is on 2.081, I might have to flood their bugtracker 
> with debuginfo related issues.

Looking forward to that. ;) - CodeView debuginfo support is 
pretty new in LLVM (and not backed by Microsoft AFAIK, plus there 
have been regressions with LLVM 6). With LLVM 7, there's a new 
debuginfo intrinsic which I hope will allow us to significantly 
improve DI for LDC.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list