On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:53:45 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote:
"Denis Koroskin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:op.vksxyn15o7c...@korden-pc...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:26:23 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote:
"Denis Koroskin" <[email protected]> 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.
It's 8.6 seconds for a single cores, 8.3s for all 4 cores (Core2 Quad
Q8300 @ 2.5Ghz, Windows).
