"Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> wrote in message news:i9jr29$6a...@digitalmars.com... > "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. >
s/(2.5/1.7)/(1.7/2.5) Too late in the day for math...
