https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #26 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2014-03-07 17:06:46 PST ---
Hooray! Now I can feel comfortable about using exceptions in my code! Well
technically speaking, it shouldn't really matter that much since exceptions
are, well, exceptiona
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #24 from Adam D. Ruppe 2014-02-20
13:59:42 PST ---
The pull request was just merged with my new code for linux, and windows
already had improved code.
Jonathan, can you confirm the new version is better on your computer too and
c
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #23 from Adam D. Ruppe 2014-02-08
15:23:19 PST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Have you tried to run the D&Java benchmark attached to this Issue 9584 ?
I didn't run these specifically, I just did the try/catch Jonathan wrote. Let
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #22 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2014-02-08 15:00:14 PST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Have you tried to run the D&Java benchmark attached to this Issue 9584 ?
Sorry, please ignore this question. I have just read pull 717 and I'v
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #21 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2014-02-08 14:56:55 PST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> I did the change in a pr for easier testing:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/717
Have you tried to run the D&Java
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #20 from Adam D. Ruppe 2014-02-07
20:10:53 PST ---
My pull request there is posix only. A win but not complete without looking at
Windows too.
And I'm not sure I understand the Windows stack trace code. There must be
something la
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #19 from Adam D. Ruppe 2014-02-07
19:22:45 PST ---
I did the change in a pr for easier testing:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/717
--
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?ta
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan M Davis 2014-02-07 17:36:50
PST ---
> Maybe we shouldn't do the stack trace on non-debug builds.
Bad idea IMHO. Exceptions and their stack traces can still be logged in release
builds, which can be useful when a
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #17 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2014-02-07 17:26:18 PST ---
Whoa. If this works out well, D exceptions could finally beat Java's!
--
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are recei
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
Adam D. Ruppe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||destructiona...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #15 from Adam D. Ruppe 2014-02-07
17:02:32 PST ---
I just played with this a little. Regular set up: ~ 270ms for the exception.
Add Runtime.traceHandler = null;, then run, down to about ~7ms per exception.
Then if I allocate th
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #14 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2014-02-07 16:50:27 PST ---
True, but at least we can lazily construct it as we unwind, so if the stack is
20 function calls deep and the catch block is only 5 functions up, then we
defer constructing
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #13 from Sean Kelly 2014-02-07 16:06:57
PST ---
(In reply to comment #12)
>
> But wouldn't that be trashed by the stack unwinding? I mean, if a catch block
> makes function calls before looking at the trace, wouldn't that scrambl
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #12 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2014-02-07 11:24:00 PST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think traces could probably be done lazily. A pointer to the stack top is
> available on throw, and all the code executed from that point sho
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
Sean Kelly changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@invisibleduck.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #10 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-12-24 17:18:58 PST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> As for returning the same exception instance if the rate of throws is too high
I have run the little programs in the linked article, and I have
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #9 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2013-12-24 11:58:33 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> The situation is improved, now in my benchmarks D exceptions are about only
> 2-2.5 times slower than Java exceptions.
>
> Further improvements i
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-12-22 04:11:58 PST ---
The situation is improved, now in my benchmarks D exceptions are about only
2-2.5 times slower than Java exceptions.
Further improvements in the GC or the optimizations lin
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan M Davis 2013-02-27 01:12:16
PST ---
> D does none. It's possible that this is what you're seeing. I can't yet tell
> if there is a bug here or not.
There's a bug in the sense that D's exception performance sucks.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #6 from Don 2013-02-27 01:04:08 PST ---
Java does indeed do a lot of optimization of exceptions.
http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue187.html
D does none. It's possible that this is what you're seeing. I can't yet tell if
t
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan M Davis 2013-02-25 10:34:29
PST ---
> But even so, I'm a bit suspicious of that Java code. Is it really throwing an
> exception? If it contains any exception handling optimisations at all, it
> would optimize the t
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-02-25 04:17:11 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm a bit suspicious of that Java code. Is it really throwing an
> exception? If it contains any exception handling optimisations at all, it
> wo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #3 from Don 2013-02-25 03:49:32 PST ---
Exception handling is not intrinsically very slow. Basically there are two
function calls per stack frame, each of which only executes a handful of
instructions. All of the data that is access
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
--- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-02-24 16:54:50 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=1194)
An old exception benchmark
In the attach there is an old exception benchmark I have kept, it compares the
same code in Java, C++, D, Python,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9584
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Com
26 matches
Mail list logo
