On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Christian Kamm
wrote:
>>> LDC can haz.
>>>
>>
>> orly?
>>
>> As in haz them now? or can potentially haz at some point in the future
>> if someone decides to do it?
>
> Can haz now. Currently looking like so
>
> templerror.d(9): Error: identifier 'wrong' is not defi
Bill Baxter wrote:
> Looks great.
> Is there a DMD patch for that somewhere in bugzilla?
I sent it directly to Walter a few months ago, but I'll also attach it to
the enhancement request you just opened.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Christian Kamm
wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Looks great.
>> Is there a DMD patch for that somewhere in bugzilla?
>
> I sent it directly to Walter a few months ago, but I'll also attach it to
> the enhancement request you just opened.
Excellent! Thanks. Here's
> So looks like bad stringof is the culprit, once again.
Why use stringof when you have an alias? This works for me in D1 - if you
discount default arguments and parameter storage classes (will templates
ever be able to touch these?).
template Forward(string clName, Methods...) {
static if(Me
Christian Kamm wrote:
So looks like bad stringof is the culprit, once again.
Why use stringof when you have an alias? This works for me in D1 - if you
discount default arguments and parameter storage classes (will templates
ever be able to touch these?).
stringof sucks, but it's easy to work
I have adapted another small benchmark to D. This benchmark is less interesting
than the other ones because it mostly tests the optimizations done by the
back-end. This means it's not a problem of the D language or its front-end, so
even if DMD here shows to be not much efficient, LDC once finis
On 2008-12-13 15:29:19 +0100, Christopher Wright said:
Christian Kamm wrote:
So looks like bad stringof is the culprit, once again.
Why use stringof when you have an alias? This works for me in D1 - if you
discount default arguments and parameter storage classes (will templates
ever be able
Hello,
Im a student of computer science and at university, we're working on a
distributed shared memory system, implemented as a C library.
Im also a great fan of D, and so Im asking myself if I could connect D
to the C library (which is no problem, as far as I know) and then modify
the memo
bearophile wrote:
I have adapted another small benchmark to D. This benchmark is less interesting
than the other ones because it mostly tests the optimizations done by the
back-end. This means it's not a problem of the D language or its front-end, so
even if DMD here shows to be not much effic
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
wrote:
> I tried this out with Tango + DMD 1.033, Tango + LDC r847 and GCC 4.3.2, my
> timings are as follows, best of three:
>
> $ dmd bench.d -O -release -inline
> long arith: 55630 ms
> nested loop: 5090 ms
>
>
> $ ldc bench.d -O3 -relea
== Quote from Jarrett Billingsley (jarrett.billings...@gmail.com)'s article
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
> wrote:
> > I tried this out with Tango + DMD 1.033, Tango + LDC r847 and GCC 4.3.2, my
> > timings are as follows, best of three:
> >
> > $ dmd bench.d -O -releas
On 2008-12-13 04:24:54 +0100, dsimcha said:
== Quote from Christopher Wright (dhase...@gmail.com)'s article
It means that you can't use one block for objects of multiple types.
Sure you can, without being any worse off than under the current
scheme. Mark the
contents of the memory as an ar
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> I hope bearophile will eventually understand that DMD is not good at
> optimizing code, and so comparing its output to GCC's is ultimately
> meaningless.
Personally, I appreciate seeing this stuff from bearophile. I use D in ways
where speed really does count. One
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Jason House
wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>
>> I hope bearophile will eventually understand that DMD is not good at
>> optimizing code, and so comparing its output to GCC's is ultimately
>> meaningless.
>
> Personally, I appreciate seeing this stuff from bea
On 2008-12-13 19:07:09 +0100, "Jarrett Billingsley"
said:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Jason House
wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
I hope bearophile will eventually understand that DMD is not good at
optimizing code, and so comparing its output to GCC's is ultimately
meaningless.
On 13.12.2008 17:16, Moritz wrote:
Hello,
Im a student of computer science and at university, we're working on a
distributed shared memory system, implemented as a C library.
Im also a great fan of D, and so Im asking myself if I could connect D
to the C library (which is no problem, as far as
Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:37:18 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
> So how fast is dmd -o-? Does this pretty much double the compile time?
> An option to reuse a previously generated .deps might be nice.
Here's the benchmark.
I'm compiling dwt-samples\examples\helloworld\HelloWorld5.d from dwt
trunk rev. 119
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Christopher Wright (dhase...@gmail.com)'s article
It means that you can't use one block for objects of multiple types.
Sure you can, without being any worse off than under the current scheme. Mark
the
contents of the memory as an array of void*s. This would have
Everyone understands that the following code is incorrect in D1:
int delegate() foo(int x)
{
int n = x;
auto bar = () { return n; };
// do stuff
return bar;
}
Unfortunately, DMD doesn't detect this kind of errors at compile time, and the
spec is not subject to change, so let's mak
Sean Kelly wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
What are the odds that some D implementation gets a moving GC in the
foreseeable future?
Minuscule. The GC isn't provided nearly enough type information to
safely move memory right now, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Sean
An related case t
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Jason House
> wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>>> I hope bearophile will eventually understand that DMD is not good at
>>> optimizing code, and so comparing its output to GCC's is ultimately
>>
Excellent, thanks for collecting and reporting that data, Sergey.
So it's not too bad, but still that says to me that caching
dependencies would be beneficial for bigger programs. But anyway, you
it would certainly be hard to beat your script in terms of simplicity.
Cached dependencies can be le
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Jason House
wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
I hope bearophile will eventually understand that DMD is not good at
optimizing code, and so comparing its output to GCC's is ultima
bearophile wrote:
Timings:
C gcc:
Long arithmetic: 11.15 s
Nested Loops: 0.11 s
D dmd:
Long arithmetic: 63.7 s
Nested Loops: 6.17 s
I suggest running obj2asm on the resulting obj files and see what the
real difference is.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Don wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> That said, LDC isn't quite there yet, especially on Windows, but it
>> would be very encouraging to see Walter take at least a little
>> interest in it. The transition would be a little painful for a while,
>> but much less pain
> Speaking of LDC, any chance that the exception handling on Win32 gets
> fixed in the near future?
No, unfortunately.
It's a problem with LLVM only supporting Dwarf2 exception handling. I'm
pretty sure it'd work if we used ELF for the object files and GCC for
linking, but Windows people tell m
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:25 PM, torhu wrote:
> On 13.12.2008 17:16, Moritz wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Im a student of computer science and at university, we're working on a
>> distributed shared memory system, implemented as a C library.
>>
>> Im also a great fan of D, and so Im asking myself if I
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:25 PM, torhu wrote:
>> On 13.12.2008 17:16, Moritz wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Im a student of computer science and at university, we're working on a
>>> distributed shared memory system, implemented as a C library.
>>>
>>> Im also a great fan o
Walter Bright:
> I suggest running obj2asm on the resulting obj files and see what the
> real difference is.
I am sorry, I have just started learning X86 asm, I am not much good yet :-)
Here you can see the asm from DMD followed by the one from GCC:
http://codepad.org/Kjttfq4z
Bye,
bearophile
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
>Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
A solution that I may like is a statement (that doesn't create a new scope,
like the static if) like:
safe
Reply to bearophile,
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
I like the idea of being able to turn on or off different checks (BTW SafeD
is
Reply to Benjamin,
Reply to bearophile,
So today the caches have changed a little how optimal code has to be
written in C. The authors say that a downside of C is that it forces
the programmer to do such memory layout manually, and today this may
lead to less performance.
Darn you, now I'm g
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Christian Kamm
wrote:
>> Speaking of LDC, any chance that the exception handling on Win32 gets
>> fixed in the near future?
>
> No, unfortunately.
>
> It's a problem with LLVM only supporting Dwarf2 exception handling. I'm
> pretty sure it'd work if we used ELF for
This shows how much some poor Java programmers today feel the need for a bit
more functional-programming in their language:
http://jedi.codehaus.org/Examples
But they are going to fail.
That page also shows why array/lazy comprehensions will be a very good thing to
add to D (I'm waiting for an a
Bill Baxter pisze:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Christian Kamm
wrote:
Speaking of LDC, any chance that the exception handling on Win32 gets
fixed in the near future?
No, unfortunately.
It's a problem with LLVM only supporting Dwarf2 exception handling. I'm
pretty sure it'd work if we used
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 7:55 AM, aarti_pl wrote:
> Bill Baxter pisze:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Christian Kamm
>> wrote:
Speaking of LDC, any chance that the exception handling on Win32 gets
fixed in the near future?
>>>
>>> No, unfortunately.
>>>
>>> It's a problem wi
== Quote from Christian Kamm (kamm-incasoftw...@removethis.de)'s article
> > Speaking of LDC, any chance that the exception handling on Win32 gets
> > fixed in the near future?
> No, unfortunately.
> It's a problem with LLVM only supporting Dwarf2 exception handling. I'm
> pretty sure it'd work if
"Sean Kelly" wrote
> == Quote from Christopher Wright (dhase...@gmail.com)'s article
>>
>> This isn't unreasonable, and it really just depends on how complete and
>> how fast D's runtime reflection is.
>
> This would incur more memory overhead as well. Right now, we make
> do with one bit per bloc
"Christopher Wright" wrote in message
news:ghlntc$ku...@digitalmars.com...
> In this case, File should close itself in its destructor. Class A can't
> close its file in its destructor because the file might have already been
> collected and finalized. And you can't use a scope guard in this cas
Bill Baxter wrote:
> I think the point is not to convince Walter to spend time working on
> DMD's optimizer, but to convince him that the DMD optimizer is
> hopelessly obsolete and thus should be abandoned in favor of another,
> like LDC. There's also the 64-bit issue. I don't see Walter ever
>
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Jason House
wrote:
>
> I couldn't agree more!
>
> I never understood why people were so anti-gdc. I would not be surprised to
> hear that the gdc developer(s) stopped after hearing just how little people
> appreciated their hard work.
>
Well, I think it has mor
Jim Hewes wrote:
Maybe it's better to think of memory and non-memory resources as different
things and handle them differently as opposed to lumping them together using
the same mechanism. I'm not sure if there is already a way to deal with this
in D as I'm not quite that familiar with D.
It
== Quote from Jason House (jason.james.ho...@gmail.com)'s article
> I couldn't agree more!
> I never understood why people were so anti-gdc. I would not be surprised to
hear that the gdc developer(s) stopped after hearing just how little people
appreciated their hard work.
Well, GDC hasn't releas
bearophile wrote:
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
Doing it at the module level was deliberate. Not for technical reasons,
but to make
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Walter is the only one who can make DMD faster, and I think his time
is much better spent on designing and maintaining the language. The
reference compiler is just supposed to be _correct_, not necessarily
_fast_. If Walter spent all his time working on making the the
45 matches
Mail list logo
