"Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.vksxyn15o7c...@korden-pc... > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:26:23 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: > >> "Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> Running the build script takes 7.967 seconds for me (timed with timeit, >>> part of the Windows Server 2003 Resource Kit Tools). >> >> My guess is it may be the multi-threaded "process multiple modules in >> parallel" optimization. DDMD does have a *lot* of source files. And I'm >> on a >> single-core (yea, yea, I know, but it works for me and I have no money). >> >> I'm curious, is it possible for you or Rainer to time it running dmd in a >> "force single-core" mode? Ideally using the main system/OS core (if there >> even is one)? I would expect a normal out-of-the-box dmd would be >> noticably >> faster for you two just because of that multi-thread/core optimization >> and >> the cores themselves just simply being faster, but 120 sec vs 8 sec still >> seems an excessive difference. >> >> And then considering also, outside of dmd bugs, I've never once had any D >> program besides ddmd take more than a few seconds - despite the fact that >> much of what I do complie is fairly template/mixin/ctfe-heavy, and ddmd >> appears to use very little (if any) of that - it's certainly still a >> conceivable speed difference, but it does make me wonder if something >> else >> might be going on. >> >> BTW, anyone know of an easy way to check how much time in a process is >> spent >> waiting on disk IO? It's entirely possible that my disk is just >> fragmented >> all to hell. >> >> > > dmd doesn't use multiple core for anything BUT asynchronous reading from > disk. Everything else is done is a single thread.
Ahh, I see. So much for that theory then. > I don't think it has THAT big of impact, but I'll try to recompile with > all the cores disabled. Thanks, that'll be interesting. I did go ahead and re-time the compile. Apparently I must have been remembering it wrong, because this time it only took 1 min 20 sec (and this was with a ton of stuff running - bunch of misc apps, FF2 with 20 tabs, an HDD SMART monitor, a torrent manager and a bunch of other servers (but no clients connected)). But that's still quite a lot of time to compile a D app, even for my machine. I also tried grabbing the latest ddmd, rebooted, killed all non-essential processes, and tried that way. Got it down to just slightly under one minute. I thought about maybe it being a limited-memory issue (remembering that dmd never frees anything until it's done - or is that just CTFE?), but I don't think that's it - the highest memory usage it ever got was about 200MB, and I have 1GB, and it still took a whole minute with almost everything besides XP shut down, so I'm not sure that was it. (I could have sworn I had 2GB at one point, but I think I probably cannibalized one of the sticks when I built my linux box - not that that's really relevant ;) ) FWIW, this is all with compiling the just the debug version of ddmd only. Ie, not including building the release version or the one-time initial setup of building dmd.lib.
