On Thursday, 25 August 2016 at 20:31:59 UTC, John Burton wrote:
I'll try to get a self contained report tomorrow.
Please do – the -deps switch is certainly not the most
well-tested part of LDC. It mostly inherits this part of the code
from DMD, but there might be a subtle, unintentional diffe
On Saturday, 6 August 2016 at 21:56:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Let me rephrase the question - how does fusing them alter the
result?
There is just one rounding operation instead of two.
Of course, if floating point values are strictly defined as
having only a minimum precision, then folding
On Saturday, 6 August 2016 at 09:35:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The LDC fastmath bothers me a lot. It throws away proper NaN
and infinity handling, and throws away precision by allowing
reciprocal and algebraic transformations.
This is true – and precisely the reason why it is actually
defin
On Saturday, 6 August 2016 at 12:48:26 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
There are compiler switches for that. Maybe there should be
one pragma to tweak these compiler switches on a per-function
basis, rather than separately named pragmas.
This might be a solution for inherently compiler-specific
sett
On Saturday, 6 August 2016 at 10:02:25 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
No pragmas tied to a specific architecture should be allowed in
the language spec, please.
I wholeheartedly agree. However, it's not like FP optimisation
pragmas would be specific to any particular architecture. They
just describe
On Friday, 24 June 2016 at 00:26:52 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
My biggest bugbear is actually the opposite of what you are
point out here: people doing careful benchmarking and
asm-inspection of small code-fragments in isolation when in
reality it is always going to be inlined and optimised in
co
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 23:34:54 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
I get the following results:
(This is of course not intended to be a comprehensive analysis.
For example, the codegen for the two functions is actually
identical on GDC and LDC, the relative differences are due to
measurement
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 22:08:20 UTC, Seb wrote:
[1] https://github.com/wilzbach/perf-d/blob/master/test_pow.d
[2] https://github.com/wilzbach/perf-d/blob/master/test_powi.d
This is a bad way to benchmark. You are essentially testing the
compiler's ability to propagate your constants into
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 17:24:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On my Ubuntu, /usr/bin/ld -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld. What does
that mean? -- Andrei
`ld --version` should clear that up. ;)
— David
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 at 12:57:47 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
[…] I believe Weka.io does not [use Phobos] either.
Weka actually uses Phobos quite liberally – `fgrep -rI "import
std." weka` yields several thousand results (I'm sure Liran will
be happy to share more details). It's just
On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 at 21:44:59 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Would you mind making a point release with it if fix is
confirmed?
That's Kai's territory, but I'm sure he'll agree that this a
sensible thing to do.
— David
On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 at 16:26:14 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
On Monday, 20 June 2016 at 11:28:58 UTC, Antonio Corbi wrote:
Hi folks!
I'm using ldc version:
LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.0.0):
based on DMD v2.070.2 and LLVM 3.8.0
built with DMD64 D Compiler v2.071.0
Default target: x86_64-unkno
On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 at 16:12:13 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 6/21/16 11:43 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 at 12:18:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 6/21/16 6:14 AM, Dicebot wrote:
httpthub.com/dlang/druntime/blob/master/src/core/thread.d#L1611
I suspected somet
On Monday, 20 June 2016 at 08:10:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
How about defining semantics like "try inlining if possible,
fallback to always emitting symbol to object file otherwise"?
That would also allow compatible implementation in dmd.
This would get rid of the undefined symbols, but there is a
Hi Antonio,
On Monday, 20 June 2016 at 11:28:58 UTC, Antonio Corbi wrote:
./ldcfail
Fatal Error while loading '/usr/lib/libphobos2-ldc.so.70':
The module 'std.regex.internal.parser' is already
defined in './ldcfail'.
[…]
Is this a bug in ldc or is it somehow related to my code?
Thank
On Monday, 20 June 2016 at 00:34:18 UTC, Joerg Joergonson wrote:
Can I just force the cast in some way if I know good an well it
works for ever? Or do I have to write extra code to get around
axiom: "We did this to save you trouble because we know better
than you what you are doing. Go forth an
On Monday, 20 June 2016 at 00:01:58 UTC, Joerg Joergonson wrote:
class a { }
class b : a { }
class A(T : a)
{
T x;
}
void main(string[] argv)
{
auto y = new A!a();
auto z = new A!b();
y.x = new a();
z.x = new b();
auto p1 = cast(A!a)y;
auto
On Sunday, 19 June 2016 at 21:13:00 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Sunday, 19 June 2016 at 21:11:59 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
(I think we can pretty much inline anything the user throws at
us)
(as long as it is not a naked asm function)
Another example is `alloca`, which you might not want to
On Sunday, 19 June 2016 at 20:20:38 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Such a separate driver could then also be used as part of the
regular distribution to improve the performance on
memory-constrained all-at-once builds, by freeing all the
frontend/LLVM memory (i.e., terminating the process) before
On Sunday, 19 June 2016 at 18:23:06 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
That will be annoying, the LDC that works with SPIR-V wont be
able to produce MSVC compatible exes. Lets hope they mainline
it soon.
One possible solution for this would be a thin driver executable
that parses just enough of th
On Sunday, 19 June 2016 at 14:05:22 UTC, mogu wrote:
It's awful that I compile a little 64bit program(or -m32mscoff)
in windows must have visual studio which has tremendous size
installed even though I only need a linker. It's weird that a
compiler compiles to binary targets needs another compi
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 14:37:23 UTC, Markus Pursche wrote:
If this is the case we would want to use Orbis.
As Seb also pointed out on GitHub, I've seen LLVM use "PS4"
internally, and it always seemed rather natural to me. On the
other hand, with Orbis I would have had no idea what the cod
On Saturday, 4 June 2016 at 17:35:23 UTC, Seb wrote:
ldc does the job (nearly) correctly.
Scratch the "nearly" – at least you can't infer that from the
performance results alone, the differences are well within the
run-to-run noise.
dmd -release -O -boundscheck=off test_looping.d &&
./test
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 21:29:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
You may want to then try https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/392710b765a9,
which generates inline code on all compilers. -- Andrei
In general, it might be beneficial to use
ldc.intrinsics.llvm_expect (cf. __builtin_expect) for things like
On Friday, 27 May 2016 at 22:12:57 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
Those should be the same though, i.e compare the same. In order
to do that, there is normalization. What is does is to _expand_
the single codepoint Ä into A + ¨
Unless I'm mistaken, this depends on the form used. For example,
in NFKC
On Friday, 27 May 2016 at 14:06:09 UTC, Chris wrote:
I have to correct myself. A manual loop is faster, I couldn't
believe it either, so I benchmarked the same function with
`foreach` and `for`. Turns out that `for` is _way_ faster.
Just about the only reason I could think of for this to happe
On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 at 14:27:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Apparently dlang-bot doesn't recognize the GitHub
syntax/conventions [1] to link and close issues from pull
requests. Instead one have to use "Fix issue ...". I don't see
a point in inventing new conventions for this.
Can we ple
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 at 17:27:37 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
FWIW, keep in mind that doesn't necessarily imply the same 2x
scale will still hold for larger programs. Could be as much as
2x, could be as little as a constant +3MB.
In typical programs, it is indeed a factor, and can be
consi
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 at 21:35:12 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
In typical programs it is indeed a factor, and can be
considerably more than 2x too. […]
To expand on that a bit, if you write template- and CTFE-less
programs with no unused code and no inlined functions, you would
obviously ex
On Monday, 9 May 2016 at 13:53:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 9 May 2016 at 13:48:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/9/2016 5:24 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
LDC can strip sections which DMD cannot.
Why not?
AFAIR, because of how ModuleInfo/TypeInfo is emitted which
makes linker never colle
On Thursday, 28 April 2016 at 18:49:54 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Please, D, don't ever do this kind of stuff! I just gained
about 45 warnings in my iOS project.
… and what? This statement alone is hardly an argument. Both
those warnings are trivial to fix in an automated fashion; in
fa
On Sunday, 24 April 2016 at 23:00:56 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
Please no cmp.
Just
bool isPowerOf2(uint x) { return x && !(x & (x - 1)); }
You do realise that this will (typically) emit a branch?
— David
On Saturday, 23 April 2016 at 20:34:52 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
So is there a way to check if popcnt builtin is available on
current platform?
As Andrei pointed out, it's not only popcnt being available, it's
also it being fast. A function implementing the classic
hand-written version compiles dow
On Saturday, 23 April 2016 at 09:13:01 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
Well, this 140k list has a removal very early on, so the linear
search is going to happen >100k times from then on ;)
No – only for searching the particular removed item (or other
false positives due to hash collisions).
— Dav
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 23:49:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
BTW, this looks like a particularly bad piece of engineering.
The trouble is, it saves an index to the member, then does a
bunch of semantic processing, then deletes what is on that
index. But what if the members[] in the meantime s
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 21:38:41 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
I don't understand exactly what you mean; do you propose to […]
do a linear search when the shadow data structure says the item
is present?
That's the idea. As long as you can reduce the need to do a full
linear search by, say, 1
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 22:10:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/22/2016 2:38 PM, Johan Engelen wrote:
I don't understand exactly what you mean; do you propose to
resort to linear
search after a removal happened? Or only do a linear search
when the shadow data
structure says the item is pre
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 21:48:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Why not just use a hash table? D's builtin one?
Apparently, some parts rely on the insertion order, although I'm
not convinced they should. Module::importAll is one of them, but
in a way that's trivial to avoid. I didn't check any
On Friday, 15 April 2016 at 18:33:44 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
I'm thinking about removing the old array all-together.
My question is: is it essential to keep an ordered list? (I see
a `.shift(...)` call on the array, to put something in first
position. If so, could that be solved by having *tw
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 18:51:57 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
As long as elements are not removed too frequently (what do
your numbers say?), the performance impact of doing a full
linear search in those cases shouldn't be too bad.
Note that a (properly tuned) probabilistic data structure l
On Saturday, 16 April 2016 at 13:58:28 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Friday, 15 April 2016 at 19:32:46 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
Another "quick fix" if we have to keep the order would be to
add a Bloom filter/… on the side to eliminate most array
searches.
In rare cases, symbols are removed
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 09:18:48 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
RMW operations on shared data are deprecated. The template
filter on atomicOp is a little different:
https://dlang.org/phobos/core_atomic.html#.atomicOp
Looks like an LDC bug.
Yes, this was indeed an LDC issue. We have our own
implemen
On Friday, 15 April 2016 at 18:33:44 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
Hi all,
When building a unittest case in Weka.io's codebase, I
measure that appendToModuleMember takes about 10% of the total
compile time, and about 25% of total semantic analysis time.
"appendToModuleMember" is the only functio
On Saturday, 26 March 2016 at 05:22:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Compression of template names. -- Andrei
Compression in the usual sense won't help. Sure, it might reduce
the object file size, but the full string will again have to be
generated first, still requiring absurd amounts time
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 17:12:42 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
Sometimes a more gradual approach may be useful:
[…]
How would this be any more than an informational annotation? If
anything, you could build a custom lint tool to propagate and
verify the unit annotations, but I don't quite see
On Saturday, 19 March 2016 at 16:18:00 UTC, Adi wrote:
I need help to write my proposal for gsoc.
What exactly do you need help with? You can find some general
hints at the GSoC student guide:
http://write.flossmanuals.net/gsocstudentguide/writing-a-proposal/.
There are currently no extra h
On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 22:16:20 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
How should then sin, cos, tan, expi be redesigned to support
`ScaledUnit` aswell as `Quantity`?
What you can do is to take an arbitrary quantity with an
(angle.canConvert!radian) template constraint. Inside the
function, you then sim
Hi Per,
Many thanks for working on the code! Could you put it up as a
separate Dub package to make it easier for people to try out?
`justd` is an 68 MiB-heavy clone, which makes it somewhat
cumbersome to play around with and contribute to it. You'd
probably also want to add your name to the A
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 12:51:28 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
I believe `isConvertableTo` is a more Phobos-compliant naming,
right?
I went for canConvert since it is a bit shorter than
isConvertible and there is precedent for it in Phobos as well
(e.g. find/canFind). It's a matter of taste, thou
On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at 09:07:05 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Monday, 14 March 2016 at 18:51:45 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
Ohm my, that's awesome. Watt needs to happen to get this into
Phobos?
I'm cleaning up David's work right and will put up a PR today.
Please make a really, really thorough p
On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at 14:46:30 UTC, D.Enguiyen wrote:
Is it able to manage quantities with a non-linear
transformations, for example when dealing with octet and byte ?
(1024)!"byte" == 1!"kbyte";
There are no non-linear transformations going on here, following
usual math terminology.
On Monday, 14 March 2016 at 19:08:18 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
have a look at this!
https://github.com/biozic/quantities
This has been brought up (and subsequently discussed) on the
first page of this thread, more than two years ago.
— David
On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at 20:18:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
I can. I know LLVM fairly well (I'm not a committer), but I do
not have that much experience with WebAssembly.
Yes, please!
I'd volunteer myself, but this summer will be too busy for me
academically.
— David
On Friday, 11 March 2016 at 15:09:26 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Yes, I know. And if I were to say which behaviour is desired.
I'd say GDC is doing the right thing.
Marking all functions as 'weak' is a terrible idea on both
DMD's and LDC's part.
I distinctly remember Daniel and me having to re
On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 18:53:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
My understanding is the main problem is the _same_ templates
are repeatedly instantiated with the same exact parameters -
the epitome of redundant work. -- Andrei
Within one compiler execution, there might be some optimiza
On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 18:19:57 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
The idea is that ldc and gdc will get plenty of warning if
something breaks.
As stated, this in itself would be utterly useless. Right now,
you can be absolutely certain that the AST semantics will change
in between each
On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 23:06:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Are there any low-hanging fruit left that could make dmd faster?
A big one would be overhauling the template mangling scheme so it
does not generate mangled names a few hundred kilo (!) bytes in
size anymore for code that uses t
On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 11:50:27 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:12 +, BBasile via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
BTW Malicious people can cheat and commit in the past,
according
to
https://github.com/gelstudios/gitfiti
commitment date is not reliable.
Indeed, which
On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 22:03:47 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
DMD did slow down because it was now being compiled by DMD
instead of g++.
You can compile it using LDC just fine now. ;)
Also, dmd was doing multithreaded file I/O, but that was
removed because speed didn't matter .
Did we
On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 03:05:21 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 2/18/2016 9:52 AM, Kai Nacke wrote:
I really like the compiler diversity.
Me too. Having 3 major implementations is a great source of
strength for D.
I like it too. I just think that we can't afford it at this
point, an
On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 02:58:08 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
A big chunk of that was getting D to catch C++ exceptions. And
before I did this work, neither GDC nor LDC did, either. It's
not a simple matter of just turning it on given Dwarf EH.
That's beside the point, the C++ interop ne
On Thursday, 25 February 2016 at 09:04:17 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
I wonder if anyone has noticed, or appreciated that, all the
trendy, hipster cloud based CI servers support Go, sometimes
C++ and C (sort of), but not Rust, or D.
Travis CI, which is probably the one "trendy, hipster" service
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 16:37:04 UTC, Suliman wrote:
func slices() {
var array = ["First", "Second", "Third", "Fourth"]
array.removeLast()
array.removeFirst()
}
also look very intuitive.
Have a look at http://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html#dropOne.
— David
On Friday, 19 February 2016 at 16:18:12 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
I have to go through each piece separated by dots to understand
what it is...
Let me play devil's advocate here: How would this be any
different if UFCS were not used?
— David
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 17:56:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[…] if you want to be writing scripts in D (which is really
useful), you need rdmd, which means using dmd
You can use rdmd with ldmd2 just as well (and presumably gdmd
too).
New users are frequently impressed by how fast
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:12:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
And actually, he'd risk legal problems if he did, because he
doesn't want anyone to be able to accuse him of taking code
from gcc or llvm.
That's a silly strawman, and you should know better than putting
that forward as an
On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 at 22:57:20 UTC, Márcio Martins
wrote:
[…]
On a completely unrelated note, you aren't by any chance the
Márcio Martins who is giving a talk at ETH in a couple of days,
are you?
— David
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 11:41:26 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
LLVM has about 2.5 million code lines. I am anything than sure
if it is easy to improve compilation speed.
I think you are a tad too pessimistic here. First, don't forget
that there are some big LLVM customers for which low compil
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 12:23:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
if the dmd backend were dropped, […] that would further slow
down the development of the frontend and not necessarily
improve things overall.
How would that be?
— David
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 21:26:36 UTC, Xinok wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 18:46:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
I was just updating a project's .travis.yml file and noticed:
It doesn't seem we have any one-stop-shop location to check
all the versions of DMD/LDC/GDC currently availab
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 19:18:12 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
If this becomes the case, please make destructors nothrow so
that people won't screw up (like they can very easily do in
C++).
This would be way too much of a restriction. Throwing in
destructors is perfectly fine in D, there is
Just noticed this on the /r/programming front page:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/43fvbv/literate_programming_tool_made_with_d/
— David
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 17:04:00 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Unfortunately that's not how it works with D. If Andrei or
Walter have a proposal it's up to the community to provide
compelling evidence why it _should not_ be added. If the
community has a proposal it's up to the community to p
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 17:40:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I forgot the distinction between currying and partial
application. Can we also define currying in current D? -- Andrei
Currying is turning (A, B, C) -> D into A -> (B -> (C -> D)),
i.e. a function with multiple arguments
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 13:36:28 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/20/16 6:01 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
How would the client code be simpler with a built-in language
feature?
The use case I have in mind is a parser, let's say an xml
parser.
[…]
I still don't see how a languag
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 23:21:49 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 1/20/2016 3:12 PM, Martin Drašar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
The "serious" problem is
that the decision to have a namespace introduce a new scope
needlessly
complicates writing D-like interfaces to C++ code, while
catering for
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 00:33:34 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
If somebody creates a repository for this I can get these
bindings into Deimos pretty quickly.
IIRC only Walter, Andrei and Brad have the necessary permissions
to create new repositories.
— David
On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 22:14:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
1. C++ has namespaces. They went and invented a whole 'nother
thing called modules. Evidently not even they think that
modules and namespaces are the same thing.
C++ modules (as per N4465, etc.) are a whole different story and
On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 21:46:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/19/2016 12:35 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
You'd run into all kinds of
weird issues, as Manu pointed out – many of which have
hopefully been fixed by
Walter in the meantime.
Please read the thread. I fixed them and posted h
On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 21:40:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Please do not conflate not agreeing with my answers with not
responding.
I am not claiming that you weren't participating in the
discussion threads or something like that. But in all your
arguments you seem to presume that (bad
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 22:00:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
Imagine if you such a call returned something, and you simply
used it throughout the rest of your function. The compiler
could rewrite this as a template and compile all three versions
and branch to the appropriate one,
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 21:27:15 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
It would be cool if the compiler could "expand" a finitely
instantiable template (one with a finite number of ways it can
be instantiated) based on a runtime value, and do the switch
for me.
Can't you just write a wrap
On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 20:03:47 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
I'm kind of surprised that people are insisting on complaining
that there's an additional namespace that's trivial to ignore
[…]
That's not what's happening here. At least when this thread was
started, it was not at all possible
On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 13:56:54 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 19 January 2016 at 18:54, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
As the length of this thread testifies, this has been
discussed at length already.
No it hasn't. I don't feel like it's been discussed at all.
I've explicitly asked both you an
On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 22:44:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Yes. But my experience from writing custom multi-single queues
is that it can end up harder than it looks to get it working
and efficient. […] (Intuition is often wrong in this area...)
I wholeheartedly agree with that sta
On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 17:44:26 UTC, Andy Smith wrote:
Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough on the internals of
the three main compiler versions to give an opinion on whether
this will be a problem or not :-(
It might work on DMD, but I know from experience (one-to-many
queues, i.
On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 15:16:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 14:20:18 UTC, Andy Smith wrote:
I'm a little worried you have no volatile writes or fences
around your code when you 'publish' an event using head/tail
etc. It looks like it's working but how
On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 16:22:12 UTC, Jin wrote:
So i simple use atomicFence. Performance does not degrade.
Either you are not calling it in the way you think you are, then,
or your code is otherwise very unoptimized. You can definitely
measure the impact of a full mfence on otherwise
On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 08:47:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
David, did you get anything like this when moving to 2.067?
It has been almost a year now, but I don't remember anything like
that – are you sure that your GC root ranges (.data/stacks/TLS)
are set correctly?
— David
On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 20:24:36 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
If it offers no leverage, entails boring work, requires a
manual, or doesn't look good on the page - it's probably wrong.
Interestingly, this applies to the JSON-based DUB configuration
format much more so than to the S
On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 19:04:19 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Sure it does:
"comment" : "This is a comment",
That only works in contexts where a dictionary is used, and also
neither stands out visually by itself nor can be rendered
differently by syntax highlighting.
— Davi
On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 21:05:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The code looks quite good. I've been trying to adjust things,
however, so there are no pushes and pops in the code, trying to
preallocate everything needed in the function prolog.
Wouldn't you still need to restore the stack bef
On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 17:31:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The calls to _d_dynamic cast appear to be redundant - shouldn't
the value in RDX be sufficient?
This is indeed the case, but of course you need to know in which
order the compiler backend wrote the type info entries to the
tabl
On Friday, 13 November 2015 at 18:40:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
There may be a few other holes between how Fibers and EH
interact.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/commit/f6633abb43ea1f2464d3a772b8f8fe78216ffd8e
The SJLJ stack switching should probably be added to this
mech
On Friday, 13 November 2015 at 06:00:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It's worth checking how LDC and GDC deal with this deep in
their optimizer - is it considering it undefined behavior?
Signed types will wrap around correctly for LDC.
— David
On Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 02:13:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
There shouldn't be anything quadratic left for template
instantiation in the frontend.
Maybe not for a single instantiation, but constructing the module
member list is overall still quadratic in the number of members
(which mi
On Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 21:16:25 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
It's more than that - dmd's optimizer is designed to make use
of the guarantees of a pure function. Since C/C++ do not have
pure functions, ldc/gdc's optimizer may not have that
capability.
Oh, GCC has had similar notions as
On Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 06:50:31 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
The tricky part with the personality function will likely be
recognizing std::exception* exceptions. I wonder if forwarding
the call to __gxx_personality_v0 will work.
This should be rather simple; you know it is C++ because o
On Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 16:55:09 UTC, Johannes Pfau
wrote:
To expand on this: I think we'd prefer one __d_personality_v0
which is implemented in upstream druntime and identical for all
compilers.
Making the compilers ABI compatible is probably not a high
priority, but OTOH we shouldn
On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 15:04:01 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Liran Zvibel […] mentioned the package-at-a-time solved
essentially all of their build problems.
They were stuck at 2.066 until very recently, though, because of
issues very similar to the one discussed here. Right now,
101 - 200 of 495 matches
Mail list logo
