Benchmarking suite
qznc via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Sep 9 07:00:05 PDT 2015
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.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list