On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 05:28:16PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 01/24/2013 02:11 PM, John Colvin wrote: > >Walter, I know you like working with the current backend and you > >understand it etc..., but this gives dmd a bus factor of 1 and is > >slowing down code in the process. > > Honestly, I don't feel this is too strong an issue. The point of > dmd is to be a reference compiler -- speed is nice if it's possible, > but not the most important consideration.
I think it would be ideal if the dmd front end were more isolated from the back end, so that it's easier to port to gdc/ldc (i.e. it can happen in the matter of days after a dmd release, not, say, weeks or months). But I believe Walter has already said that patches to this effect are welcome, so I can only see the situation improve in the future. Nevertheless, I also have made the same observation that code produced by gdc consistently outperforms code produced by dmd. Usually by about 20-30%, sometimes as much as 50-60%, IME. That's a pretty big discrepancy for me, esp. when I'm doing compute-intensive geometric computations. > The most important thing is that new frontend updates can get merged > quickly into ldc/gdc, so that there is no time lag between new > feature development and their incorporation into other compilers. Agreed. T -- It is of the new things that men tire --- of fashions and proposals and improvements and change. It is the old things that startle and intoxicate. It is the old things that are young. -- G.K. Chesterton
