Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On 10/25/2013 03:50 AM, ilya-stromberg wrote: It depends. Two benchmarks of different languages and compilers: http://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/benchmarking-level-generation-go-rust-haskell-and-d/ http://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/benchmarks-round-two-parallel-go-rust-d-scala-and-nimrod/ I think it's answer for your question. For example, Clang (LLVM C) is fastest, LDC (LLVM D) has 2-nd place, but LLVM-GHC (LLVM Haskell) ~ 2 times slower. Yes, that answers my question. Thanks for those great links! It's impressive the LDC is as fast as Clang!!
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On Friday, 25 October 2013 at 07:50:36 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: I think it's answer for your question. For example, Clang (LLVM C) is fastest, LDC (LLVM D) has 2-nd place, but LLVM-GHC (LLVM Haskell) ~ 2 times slower. The explanation is quite simple. LLVM understand C and C++ runtime. It doesn't understand D runtime (LDC is doing some work in that regard, but it is still limited). So you see a difference between C and C++ as some optimization will be done in C/C++ (for instance heap to stack promotion) when it won't be done in D. Haskell has really different semantic than C and C++, and quite far away from the hardware, so you have to expect a performance drop. The comparison of either C or C++ with haskell is not really meaningful as it is really comparing apple and bananas.
Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program
On 10/25/2013 6:15 AM, eles wrote: It is a specific reason why this is kept?: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ohduisigpwdiqhpde...@forum.dlang.org#post-btwbpwgluzyxmhphwebp:40forum.dlang.org Breaking peoples' build scripts and makefiles is not nice :-)
Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program
On Friday, 25 October 2013 at 13:24:12 UTC, eles wrote: On Saturday, 12 October 2013 at 22:16:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip Current list of regressions: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED And the famous int[$] x = [1,2,3]; to declare static arrays and force the compiler to compute the length? When was decided to add this? I would love it, but I cannot remember that this was decided.
Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program
On Saturday, 12 October 2013 at 22:16:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip Current list of regressions: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED And the famous int[$] x = [1,2,3]; to declare static arrays and force the compiler to compute the length?
Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program
On Saturday, 12 October 2013 at 22:16:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip Current list of regressions: It is a specific reason why this is kept?: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ohduisigpwdiqhpde...@forum.dlang.org#post-btwbpwgluzyxmhphwebp:40forum.dlang.org
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On 2013-10-23 00:42, David Nadlinger wrote: LDC 0.12.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! It is built on the 2.063.2 frontend and standard library and supports LLVM 3.1-3.3 (OS X: 3.2 only). I noticed that Apple's releases of Clang is still at 3.2. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 17:45:50 UTC, John Joyus wrote: On 10/22/2013 06:42 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: LDC 0.12.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! Congratulations! I am a D enthusiast who reads more *about* D than actually learning the language! ;) I have a question about LLVM. When it comes to performance, do all LLVM-based languages eventually match each other in speed for any given task, no matter it is Clang or D? I guess having or not having a GC (or different implementations of it in different languages) will make a difference, but if we exclude GC, will they be generating the same exact code for any given operation? In other words, though two different languages are based on LLVM, can one of its binary exceed the other in speed? Thanks. It depends. Two benchmarks of different languages and compilers: http://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/benchmarking-level-generation-go-rust-haskell-and-d/ http://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/benchmarks-round-two-parallel-go-rust-d-scala-and-nimrod/ I think it's answer for your question. For example, Clang (LLVM C) is fastest, LDC (LLVM D) has 2-nd place, but LLVM-GHC (LLVM Haskell) ~ 2 times slower.
