bearophile Wrote:
> Justin Johansson:
>
> >The results are not clear cut at all this time. So what's going on?<
>
> I don't know. I have a certain experience of benchmarks now, and I know they
> are tricky.
>
> I usually like to help people understand they don't understand what's going
> on
Justin Johansson:
> Also added -O switch this time though have no idea what level of optimization
> that does.
> (btw. In this test code, the -release switch doesn't do anything does it
> as that's just for conditional compilation?)
In DMD:
-O means "full optimizations minus the inlining (and ke
bearophile Wrote:
> Justin Johansson:
>
> > this turns out to be
> > a clear demonstration of the performance-enhancing power of D delegates
> > over an
> > otherwise ingrained C++ thinking approach.
>
> I have changed your benchmark a little, you may want to look at its timings
> too (I have
Justin Johansson:
> this turns out to be
> a clear demonstration of the performance-enhancing power of D delegates over
> an
> otherwise ingrained C++ thinking approach.
I have changed your benchmark a little, you may want to look at its timings too
(I have taken timings with it with DMD and LD
bearophile Wrote:
> Justin Johansson:
>
> > downs:
> > > Also I have no idea what you mean. Should delegate _values_ be heap
> > > allocated?! That'd be insanity. Also, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. The
> > > stack is relatively likely to be in the CPU cache. A random pointer
> > > dereferenci
