On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 19:40:21 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 19:00:23 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Just use this little program to simulate the process.
That's not really useful for understanding and making progress
on the issue.
I had a patch with improved hash
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 22:48:56 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:08:04 +, safety0ff wrote:
[...]
That's one option. Here's another:
Template instantiations are interned as they are constructed
(or at least should be). You must construct their arguments
before you
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:08:04 +, safety0ff wrote:
> However, I understand the quadratic nature of comparing:
> AliasSeq!(AliasSeq!(AliasSeq!(...)))
> to:
> AliasSeq!(AliasSeq!(...))
That's one option. Here's another:
Template instantiations are interned as they are constructed (or at least
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 19:40:21 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 19:00:23 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Just use this little program to simulate the process.
That's not really useful for understanding and making progress
on the issue.
I had a patch with improved hash
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 19:40:21 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
That's not really useful for understanding and making progress
on the issue.
Uh, it kinda does actually. It's highlighting that a better hash
function will only have a minor effect. The time sink is the
number of instantiations
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 19:00:23 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Just use this little program to simulate the process.
That's not really useful for understanding and making progress on
the issue.
I had a patch with improved hash functions which I stashed away
since it seemed the mangle
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 18:08:04 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 17:20:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
That means you have to compute the mangled name which is crazy
expensive.
And you can't cache the parent part of mangle because it all
freshly generated by the
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 17:20:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
That means you have to compute the mangled name which is crazy
expensive.
And you can't cache the parent part of mangle because it all
freshly generated by the template.
How often would the mangle be needed regardless later on
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 17:04:24 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 16:26:29 UTC, Ethan Watson wrote:
At the very least, I now have an idea of which parts of the
compiler I'm taxing and can attempt to write around that. But
I'm also tempted to go in and optimise
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 16:26:29 UTC, Ethan Watson wrote:
At the very least, I now have an idea of which parts of the
compiler I'm taxing and can attempt to write around that. But
I'm also tempted to go in and optimise those parts of the
compiler.
Have a look at this issue:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 16:26:29 UTC, Ethan Watson wrote:
But
I'm also tempted to go in and optimise those parts of the
compiler.
I already what I could to optimize those parts.
whatever you manage to squeeze out.
It's not going to do much good.
The templates you are using are by their
I've been keeping in contact with Stefan and providing him
example code to test with his CTFE engine. He's been saying for a
while that templates are slow. So I decided to finally work out
just how slow we're talking about here.
I can't show the exact code I'm running with, but needless to
12 matches
Mail list logo
