dmd makes D appear slow

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 30 May 2015 at 14:29:56 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:00:57 +0000, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
>
>> So personally I vote that speed optimizations on DMD are a 
>> waste of time
>> at the moment.
>
> it's not only waste of time, it's unrealistic to make DMD 
> backend's
> quality comparable to GDC/LDC. it will require complete rewrite 
> of backend
> and many man-years of work. and GDC/LDC will not simply sit 
> frozen all
> this time.

+1 for LDC as first class!

D would become a lot more appealing if it could take advantage of 
the LLVM tooling already available!

Regarding the speed problem - One could always have LDC have a 
nitro switch, where it simply runs less of the expensive passes, 
thus reducing the codegen quality, but improving speed. Would 
that work? I'm assuming the "slowness" in LLVM comes from the 
optimization passes.

Would clang's thread-sanitizer and address-sanitizer be adaptable 
and usable with D as well?