"Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.vks9nlljo7c...@korden-pc... > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:53:45 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: > >> "Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:op.vksxyn15o7c...@korden-pc... >>> 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).
Hmm... that does make my situation seem odd then. Mine's a 1.7 GHz Celeron, so a little more than half the clock speed of yours. Of course, I'm well aware that my older architecture and less cache make mine slower than (2.5/1.7) of your speed, but that still seems like a strangely large difference. I wonder if maybe RAM speed could account for it.
