On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 11:02:21 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 10:31:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Sunday, 7 December 2014 at 22:46:02 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
08-Dec-2014 01:38, John Colvin пишет:
On Sunday, 7 December 2014 at 22:13:50 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
08-Dec-2014 00:36, John Colvin пишет:
On Sunday, 7 December 2014 at 19:56:49 UTC, Dmitry
Olshansky wrote:
06-Dec-2014 18:33, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d пишет:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 03:26:08PM +0000, Russel Winder
via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
primitive are passed by value; arrays and user defined
types are
passed by reference only (killing memory usage)
Primitive types are scheduled for removal, leaving only
reference
types.
[...]
Whoa. So they're basically going to rely on JIT to
convert those boxed
Integers into hardware ints for performance?
With great success.
Sounds like I will never
consider Java for computation-heavy tasks then...
Interestingly working with JVM for the last 2 years the
only problem
I've found is memory usage overhead of collections and
non-trivial
objects. In my tests performance of simple numeric code
was actually
better with Scala (not even plain Java) then with D
(LDC), for
instance.
Got an example? I'd be interested to see a numerical-code
example where
the JVM can beat the llvm/gcc backends on a real
calculation (even if
it's a small one).
It was trivial Gaussian integration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_quadrature
I do not claim code is optimal or anything, but it's line
for line.
[snip]
on my machine (Haswell i5) I get scala as taking 1.6x as
long as the ldc
version.
I don't know scala though, I compiled using -optimise, are
there other
arguments I should be using?
There is no point in -optimise at least I do not recall using
it.
What's your JVM ? It should be Oracle's HotSpot not OpenJDK.
hotspot.
After changing the benchmark to more carefully measure the
integration function (ldc was unfairly taking advantage of
knowing a and b at compile-time), scala does indeed win by a
small margin.
I wonder what it's managing to achieve here? AFAICT there
really isn't much scope for optimisation in that while loop
without breaking IEEE-754 guarantees.
I don't think 'f' will be inlined in the D version. What
happens if you make it an alias instead?
The delegate is inlined, after the whole integrate function is
inlined into timeIt.
