On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:53:43 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 6/18/2012 6:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:53:43 +0200, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 6/18/2012 6:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 17:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Yeah, but I can't escape that lingering feeling that lexing is
slow.
I was fairly disappointed that asynchronously reading the
source files didn't have a measurable effect most of the time.
I don't even understand all this rage
On Tuesday, 19 June 2012 at 01:47:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Parsing is not a huge issue. Depending on how powerful the
language is, auto-completion may depend on full code analysis.
Yep, pegged runs at compile time.
Am 19.06.2012 09:43, schrieb Kagamin:
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 17:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Yeah, but I can't escape that lingering feeling that lexing is
slow.
I was fairly disappointed that asynchronously reading the
source files didn't have a measurable effect most of the time.
I
Am 18.06.2012 19:53, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 6/18/2012 6:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time taken on
semantic1().
Do you have data that
Le 16/06/2012 11:18, Iain Buclaw a écrit :
On 13 June 2012 12:47, Iain Buclawibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 12:33, Kagamins...@here.lot wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 11:29:45 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
The measurements should be done for modules being imported, not the module
On 16 June 2012 22:17, Guillaume Chatelet chatelet.guilla...@gmail.com wrote:
So parsing time has taken quite a hit since I last did any reports on
compilation speed of building phobos.
So maybe my post about keeping import clean wasn't as irrelevant as I
thought.
Le 17/06/2012 00:41, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 6/14/2012 11:58 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
And we're well set up for parallel compilation. There's no shortage of
things we
can do to improve compilation time.
The language is carefully designed, so that at least in theory all the
passes could be
Le 18/06/2012 19:53, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 6/18/2012 6:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time taken on
semantic1().
Do you have data
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time taken on
semantic1().
Do you have data that shows otherwise?
Nothing recent, it's mostly from my C++ compiler testing.
But you
On 6/18/2012 6:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time taken on
semantic1().
Do you have data that shows otherwise?
Nothing recent, it's
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 17:54:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/18/2012 6:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 17/06/12 00:37, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time
taken on
semantic1().
Do
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 18:05:59 UTC, Daniel wrote:
Same here, I wish there were a standardized pre-lexed-token
binary file-format, would benefit all text editors also, as
they need to lex it anyway to perform color syntax highlighting.
If I were to make my own language, I'd forego a
On 06/19/2012 02:47 AM, Chris Cain wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 18:05:59 UTC, Daniel wrote:
Same here, I wish there were a standardized pre-lexed-token binary
file-format, would benefit all text editors also, as they need to lex
it anyway to perform color syntax highlighting.
If I were
On 13 June 2012 12:47, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 12:33, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 11:29:45 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
The measurements should be done for modules being imported, not the module
being compiled.
Something like this.
---
On 16 June 2012 10:18, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 12:47, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 12:33, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 11:29:45 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
The measurements should be done for modules being imported,
So parsing time has taken quite a hit since I last did any reports on
compilation speed of building phobos.
So maybe my post about keeping import clean wasn't as irrelevant as I
thought.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Keeping_imports_clean_162890.html#N162890
--
Guillaume
On 6/14/2012 1:03 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
It is for debug builds.
Iain's data indicates that it's only a few % of the time taken on semantic1().
Do you have data that shows otherwise?
Nothing recent, it's mostly from my C++ compiler testing.
Yes, it is designed so you could just import a
On 6/14/2012 11:58 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
And we're well set up for parallel compilation. There's no shortage of things we
can do to improve compilation time.
The language is carefully designed, so that at least in theory all the passes
could be done in parallel. I've got the file reads in
On 14/06/12 10:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:03:05 Don Clugston wrote:
On 13/06/12 16:29, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2012 1:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull
On Friday, June 15, 2012 08:58:55 Don Clugston wrote:
I don't think Phobos should use .di files at all. I don't think there
are any cases where we want to conceal code.
The performance benefit you would get is completely negligible. It
doesn't even reduce the number of files that need to be
On 13/06/12 16:29, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2012 1:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:03:05 Don Clugston wrote:
On 13/06/12 16:29, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2012 1:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
On Thursday, 14 June 2012 at 08:11:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Or do we still end up paying the semantic
cost for importing the .d files such that using .di files would
still help with
compilation times?
Oh, right, the module can use mixins and CTFE, so it should be
semantically
On Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 12:23:21 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 12.06.2012 16:09, foobar wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 11:09:04 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to
suggest
further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface files try to achieve
On 13 June 2012 09:07, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to
suggest
further
Le 13/06/2012 11:37, Iain Buclaw a écrit :
On 13 June 2012 09:07, Don Clugstond...@nospam.com wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
On 13.06.2012 13:37, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 13 June 2012 09:07, Don Clugstond...@nospam.com wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
On 13 June 2012 10:45, Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13.06.2012 13:37, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 13 June 2012 09:07, Don Clugstond...@nospam.com wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to
On 13.06.2012 14:16, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 13 June 2012 10:45, Dmitry Olshanskydmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13.06.2012 13:37, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 13 June 2012 09:07, Don Clugstond...@nospam.comwrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour
The measurements should be done for modules being imported, not
the module being compiled.
Something like this.
---
import std.algorithm;
import std.stdio;
import std.typecons;
import std.datetime;
int ok;
---
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 11:29:45 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
The measurements should be done for modules being imported, not
the module being compiled.
Something like this.
---
import std.algorithm;
import std.stdio;
import std.typecons;
import std.datetime;
int ok;
---
Oh and let it import .d
On 13 June 2012 12:33, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 11:29:45 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
The measurements should be done for modules being imported, not the module
being compiled.
Something like this.
---
import std.algorithm;
import std.stdio;
import std.typecons;
On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 11:47:31 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
std.datetime is one reason for me to run it again. I can
imagine that
*that* module will have an impact on parse times. But I'm still
persistent that the majority of the compile time in the
frontend is
done in the first semantic
On 6/13/2012 1:07 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 18:46, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to
suggest
further ideas.
As far as I
On 2012-06-13 13:47, Iain Buclaw wrote:
std.datetime is one reason for me to run it again. I can imagine that
*that* module will have an impact on parse times. But I'm still
persistent that the majority of the compile time in the frontend is
done in the first semantic pass, and not the
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd
like to suggest further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface files try to achieve these
conflicting goals:
1) speed up compilation by avoiding having to reparse
Currently .di-files are compiler independent. If this should hold
for dib-files, too, we'll need a standard ast structure, won't we?
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to
suggest further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface files try to achieve these
conflicting goals:
1) speed up
On 06/12/2012 12:47 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 12-06-2012 12:23, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
Currently .di-files are compiler independent. If this should hold for
dib-files, too, we'll need a standard ast structure, won't we?
Which is a Good Thing (TM). It would /require/ formalization of
On Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 11:09:04 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd
like to
suggest further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface
On 12.06.2012 16:09, foobar wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 11:09:04 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to
suggest further ideas.
As
On Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 11:09:04 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd
like to
suggest further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface
On 2012-06-12 14:09, foobar wrote:
This is a solved problem since the 80's (E.g. Pascal units). Per Adam's
post, the issue is tied to DMD's use of OMF/optlink which we all would
like to get rid of anyway. Once we're in proper COFF land, couldn't we
just store the required metadata (binary AST?)
Le 12/06/2012 12:23, Tobias Pankrath a écrit :
Currently .di-files are compiler independent. If this should hold for
dib-files, too, we'll need a standard ast structure, won't we?
We need it anyway at some point. AST macro is another example.
It would also greatly simplify compiler writing
Le 12/06/2012 14:39, foobar a écrit :
Another related question - AFAIK the LLVM folks did/are doing work to
make their implementation less platform-depended. Could we leverage this
in ldc to store LLVM bit code as D libs which still retain enough info
for the compiler to replace header files?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:46:44 -0700, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-06-12 14:09, foobar wrote:
This is a solved problem since the 80's (E.g. Pascal units). Per Adam's
post, the issue is tied to DMD's use of OMF/optlink which we all would
like to get rid of anyway. Once we're in
On 06/12/2012 03:54 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 12/06/2012 12:23, Tobias Pankrath a écrit :
Currently .di-files are compiler independent. If this should hold for
dib-files, too, we'll need a standard ast structure, won't we?
We need it anyway at some point.
Plain D code is already a perfectly
On 6/12/2012 2:07 AM, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945); I'd like to suggest
further ideas.
As far as I understand, di interface files try to achieve these conflicting
goals:
1) speed up
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:23:16 -0700, Dmitry Olshansky
dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12.06.2012 16:09, foobar wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 11:09:04 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to improve di file generation
On 12.06.2012 22:47, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:23:16 -0700, Dmitry Olshansky
dmitry.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12.06.2012 16:09, foobar wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 11:09:04 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
On 12/06/12 11:07, timotheecour wrote:
There's a current pull request to
53 matches
Mail list logo
