Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, the problem is that it potentially makes him give away the rights
to the dmd backend. Which I think he can't legally do, even if he
wanted to.
I don't think there is any danger of this, it would be well established
that Walter wrote all his proprietary
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:55:42 -0400, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Personally, I am not too concerned about the backend performance, it's
not critical to D at this time. Someone, somewhere, will make this
better, and then any code written in
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
As long as you discount the vast differences in allocation performance,
the code generated should be just as good as code generated by a C++
compiler. Your interpretation of performance did not focus on the right
part :) Your test application heavily used
On 23/04/10 17:22, #ponce wrote:
In C++ implicit constructors and conversion operators allow a user-defined type
to act quite like a builtin-type.
struct half
{
half(float x);l
inline operator float() const;
}
allows to write:
half x = 1.f;
float f = x;
and this
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:28:55 -0400, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
As long as you discount the vast differences in allocation performance,
the code generated should be just as good as code generated by a C++
compiler. Your interpretation of
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I do see the point about allocation and reallocation -- what was
bothering me a bit was that even taking those aspects out of the code
and preallocating everything, I could write C++ code that _didn't_
preallocate and still ran (much) faster ... :-)
If you are
Joseph Wakeling wrote:
No ... ! That was true in the original code I posted, but following
bearophile's kind example that part of the code was updated to a form
along the lines of,
Just for reference, here are the two pieces of code, for side-by-side
comparison. As far as I can tell the
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:00:50 -0400, Joseph Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
Joseph Wakeling wrote:
No ... ! That was true in the original code I posted, but following
bearophile's kind example that part of the code was updated to a form
along the lines of,
Just for reference,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 18:46, Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.comwrote:
On 23/04/10 17:22, #ponce wrote:
In C++ implicit constructors and conversion operators allow a user-defined
type to act quite like a builtin-type.
struct half
{
half(float x);l
inline operator
