11-Oct-2013 13:07, Jonathan M Davis пишет:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:56:14 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
04-Oct-2013 15:28, Brian Schott пишет:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 20:11:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I see we're considerably behind dmd. If improving performance would
come at the price of changing the API, it may be sensible to hold off
adoption for a bit.
Andrei
The old benchmarks measured total program run time. I ran a new set of
benchmarks, placing stopwatch calls around just the lexing code to
bypass any slowness caused by druntime startup. I also made a similar
modification to DMD.
Here's the result:
https://raw.github.com/Hackerpilot/hackerpilot.github.com/master/experimen
tal/std_lexer/images/times5.png
I suspect that I've made an error in the benchmarking due to how much
faster std.d.lexer is than DMD now, so I've uploaded what I have to
Github.
https://github.com/Hackerpilot/lexerbenchmark
I'm suspicious of:
printf("%s\t%f\n", srcname, (total / 200.0) / (1000 * 100));
Plus I think clock_gettime often has too coarse resolution (I'd use
gettimeofday as more reliable).
Also check core\time.d TickDuration.currSystemTick as it uses
CLOCK_MONOTONIC on *nix. You should do the same to make timings meaningful.
Why not just use use std.datetime's benchmark or StopWatch? Though looking at
lexerbenchmark.d it looks like he's using StopWatch rather than clock_gettime
directly, and there are no printfs, so I don't know what code you're referring
to here. From the looks of it though, he's basically reimplemented
std.datetime.benchmark in benchmarklexer.d and probably should have just used
benchmark instead.
Cause it's C++ damn it! ;)
- Jonathan M Davis
--
Dmitry Olshansky
