On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM, grauzone wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>>
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, grauzone wrote:
>
> 1. Some uber-hardcore performance freaks will not even consider D if
> it
> has the
> slightest bit of performance overhea
== Quote from Denis Koroskin (2kor...@gmail.com)'s article
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:36:16 +0400, dsimcha wrote:
> > The fact that DMD does not inline functions with ref parameters has come
> > up
> > several times deep in threads on this NG before, but it's never really
> > received proper attenti
grauzone wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, grauzone wrote:
1. Some uber-hardcore performance freaks will not even consider D
if it
has the
slightest bit of performance overhead compared to C++.
I don't understand why D should pander to C++ freaks? If they think
thei
On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:36:16 +0400, dsimcha wrote:
> The fact that DMD does not inline functions with ref parameters has come
> up
> several times deep in threads on this NG before, but it's never really
> received proper attention. After changing a few swaps in
> performance-critical
> area
== Quote from Bill Baxter (wbax...@gmail.com)'s article
> Performance is one of the major selling points of D. Why settle for a
> language with sub-standard tools and lack of safety if you don't care
> about performance? If you don't care about performance you're
> probably better off with one of
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, grauzone wrote:
1. Some uber-hardcore performance freaks will not even consider D if it
has the
slightest bit of performance overhead compared to C++.
I don't understand why D should pander to C++ freaks? If they think their
language is grea
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, grauzone wrote:
>> 1. Some uber-hardcore performance freaks will not even consider D if it
>> has the
>> slightest bit of performance overhead compared to C++.
>
> I don't understand why D should pander to C++ freaks? If they think their
> language is great, they'
dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from grauzone (n...@example.net)'s article
>> Of course, this doesn't have to do with DMD's optimizer. That said, if
>> you want heavy optimization, you rather should look at LDC or GDC.
>
> In general I agree. There are higher priorities than improving DMD's
> optimiz
I have compiled a small variant of your code with the a very new LDC compiler
(May 9 revision, it doesn't print the revision number), the code:
import tango.stdc.stdio: printf;
import Integer = tango.text.convert.Integer;
void swap(T)(ref T a, ref T b) {
T temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp;
== Quote from grauzone (n...@example.net)'s article
> Of course, this doesn't have to do with DMD's optimizer. That said, if
> you want heavy optimization, you rather should look at LDC or GDC.
In general I agree. There are higher priorities than improving DMD's
optimization
back end. This is a
On second thought, maybe this should be a high priority issue, for two reasons.
1. Some uber-hardcore performance freaks will not even consider D if it has the
slightest bit of performance overhead compared to C++.
I don't understand why D should pander to C++ freaks? If they think
their lang
== Quote from Michel Fortin (michel.for...@michelf.com)'s article
> Which makes me think: now that "this" in structs is now a "ref"
> parameter, does that mean that all non-static member functions of a
> struct won't be inlined?
Oddly enough, based on looking at some disassembly, DMD apparently in
On 2009-05-15 16:36:16 -0400, dsimcha said:
The fact that DMD does not inline functions with ref parameters has come up
several times deep in threads on this NG before, but it's never really
received proper attention. After changing a few swaps in performance-critical
areas of my code to "manu
== Quote from Bill Baxter (wbax...@gmail.com)'s article
> Well it was shown before in a demo ray-tracer that the inability to
> inline funcs with refs caused a significant speed hit under DMD. And
> now we're seeing it's causing a significant speed hit for sorting
> because of swap routines.
> The
Well it was shown before in a demo ray-tracer that the inability to
inline funcs with refs caused a significant speed hit under DMD. And
now we're seeing it's causing a significant speed hit for sorting
because of swap routines.
There may be some thorny issues regarding inlining with refs in the
== Quote from Bill Baxter (wbax...@gmail.com)'s article
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:36 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> > The fact that DMD does not inline functions with ref parameters has come
> up
> > several times deep in threads on this NG before, but it's never really
> > received proper attention. Aft
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:36 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> The fact that DMD does not inline functions with ref parameters has come up
> several times deep in threads on this NG before, but it's never really
> received proper attention. After changing a few swaps in performance-critical
> areas of my code
The fact that DMD does not inline functions with ref parameters has come up
several times deep in threads on this NG before, but it's never really
received proper attention. After changing a few swaps in performance-critical
areas of my code to "manually inlined" swaps and seeing significant speed
18 matches
Mail list logo
