Am 04.06.2011 16:54, schrieb dsimcha: > On 6/4/2011 9:15 AM, bearophile wrote: >> Walter: >> >>> It would be nice to figure out what is different. Try using the coverage >>> analyzer and profiler for starters! >> >> There are little differences and inefficiencies here and there, but in >> the second D version I think most of the performance difference over >> the C++ code is caused by the GC. I will do some tests. >> >> Bye, >> bearophile > > That's probably right, for two reasons: > > 1. Other than the GC, D doesn't have any "hidden cost" features that > would explain it being slower than C++ for similarly written code. >
Besides better optimization by the compiler, see Adam Ruppe's post, 3 posts up: > On my computer, the D version ran slightly faster (56 seconds vs 63s > for C++) without optimizations turned on. > > With optimizations turned on, C++ took a nice lead (28 seconds vs 53 > seconds for D). So it seems like it's not all the GCs fault. > 2. A few posts back, it was noted that DMD2.053, which includes my GC > optimizations, was substantially faster than 2.052, which doesn't.
