Yet another strike against the current AA implementation

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:35:22 -0400, downs <default_357-line at yahoo.de>  
wrote:

> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On 2009-04-27 10:51:22 -0400, Frits van Bommel
>>> <fvbommel at REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> said:
>>>
>>>> I edited this code to work with ldc (D1) + Tango, and saw the Direct
>>>> and opApply cases generate identical code (inc, cmp, jne, with the
>>>> loop counter in a register) [1], so they're equally fast (modulo
>>>> process scheduling randomness).
>>> Thank you for your timings. I think it shows my point: that by  
>>> prefering
>>> ranges over opApply we're just optimising around a deficiency in DMD's
>>> optimizer.
>>
>> Not true.  Here's an excellent reason to use ranges over opApply: you
>> can't define zip with opApply.  Because opApply uses inversion of
>> control, you can't use more than one without bringing threads into the
>> equation.
>>
>
> Your point stands, of course, but I just wanted to mention that  
> stackthreads/fibers work too and have far less overhead.

read: less overhead than full threads, not less overhead than ranges ;)

-Steve