== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article > On Saturday 27 November 2010 22:13:39 Austin Hastings wrote: > > On 11/27/2010 11:53 AM, bearophile wrote: > > > While translating a common Python script to D, I have found something > > > interesting, so I have reduced it to a little benchmark. > > > > > > Below there is the reduced Python2 code (it uses Psyco), and a little > > > program to generate some test data. The timing of the first D2 version > > > is not good compared to the Python-Psyco program (the generation of the > > > *300 array is a quick thing), so I have created two more D2 versions to > > > show myself that D2 wasn't broken :-) > > > > > > The reduced code looks like a syntetic benchmark, but it has about the > > > same performance profile of a 60 lines long Python script (the original > > > code was using xrange(0,len(...)-3,3) instead of xrange(len(...)-3), > > > but the situation doesn't change much). > > > > It's not clear to me if the point of your post is "how do I make this go > > faster?" or "Waa! D underperforms Python by default". > What I think is pretty clear from this is that at some point, some work needs > to > be done to optimize array comparisons when memcmp can be used instead of > having > to call the individual opEquals() of each element. It's not the sort of thing > that's likely to be a priority, but it really should be done at some point. > - Jonathan M Davis
Just food for thought. GDC uses memcmp when using string comparisons in the first implementation. if (codon == "TAG" || codon == "TGA" || codon == "TAA") And it is still the slowest case of the lot. Regards
