On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 01:17:20 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle wrote:
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 00:43:49 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 23:37:45 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 21:24:03 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
[...]
I reduced it further:
On Saturday, 7 November 2015 at 03:18:59 UTC, steven kladitis
wrote:
[...]
I am still disappointed that DMD is not native 64 bit in
windows yet.
[...]
It's because they can't make a nice distribution. DMD win32 is a
nice package that works out of the box (compiler, standard C lib,
standard
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 11:38:29 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 11:37:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Ok, benchA and benchB have the same assembler code generated.
However, I _can_ reproduce the slowdown albeit on average only
20%-40%, not a factor of 10.
Forgot to
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 11:37:22 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Ok, benchA and benchB have the same assembler code generated.
However, I _can_ reproduce the slowdown albeit on average only
20%-40%, not a factor of 10.
Forgot to add that this is on Linux x86_64, so that probably
explains the
Ok, benchA and benchB have the same assembler code generated.
However, I _can_ reproduce the slowdown albeit on average only
20%-40%, not a factor of 10.
It turns out that it's always the first tested function that's
slower. You can test this by switching benchA and benchB in the
call to
I did some testing on Linux and Windows.
I ran the code with ten times the iterations, and found the
results consistent with what has previously been observed in this
thread.
The code seems to run just fine on Linux, but is slowed down 10x
on Windows x86.
Windows (32-bit)
rdmd bug.d
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 17:55:47 UTC, arGus wrote:
I did some testing on Linux and Windows.
I ran the code with ten times the iterations, and found the
results consistent with what has previously been observed in
this thread.
The code seems to run just fine on Linux, but is slowed down
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 03:52:47 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
I don't really know where to go from here to figure out the
underlying cause. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Can you publish two compilable and runnable versions of the code
that exhibit the difference? Then we can have a
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 21:24:03 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 21:22:18 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 11:14:50 UTC, Marc Schütz
wrote:
~10x slowdown...
I forgot to mention this but I am using DMD 2.069.0-rc2 for x86
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 23:37:45 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 21:24:03 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
[...]
I reduced it further:
[...]
these run at the exact same speed for me and produce identical
assembly output from a quick glance
dmd 2.069, -O
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 11:14:50 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 03:52:47 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
Can you publish two compilable and runnable versions of the
code that exhibit the difference? Then we can have a look at
the generated assembly. If there's
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 21:22:18 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 11:14:50 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
~10x slowdown...
I forgot to mention this but I am using DMD 2.069.0-rc2 for x86
windows.
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 00:43:49 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 23:37:45 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 21:24:03 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
[...]
I reduced it further:
[...]
these run at the exact same speed for me and produce
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 01:17:20 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle wrote:
On Friday, 6 November 2015 at 00:43:49 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 23:37:45 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 21:24:03 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
[...]
I reduced it further:
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 at 03:52:47 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
[...]
I solved the problem by changing the struct to look like this.
align(16) struct Pos
{
float x = float.nan;
float y = float.nan;
float z = float.nan;
float w = float.nan;
}
wow that's quite strange. FP
On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 at 01:14:31 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
Note that there are two different alignments:
to control padding between instances on the stack
(arrays)
to control padding between members of a struct
align(64) //arrays
struct foo
{
align(16) short
On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 at 23:29:45 UTC, TheFlyingFiddle
wrote:
Is there a built in way to do this in dmd?
Basically I want to do this:
auto decode(T)(...)
{
while(...)
{
T t = T.init; //I want this aligned to 64 bytes.
}
}
Currently I am using:
align(64) struct
Is there a built in way to do this in dmd?
Basically I want to do this:
auto decode(T)(...)
{
while(...)
{
T t = T.init; //I want this aligned to 64 bytes.
}
}
Currently I am using:
align(64) struct Aligner(T)
{
T value;
}
auto decode(T)(...)
{
Aligner!T t = void;
18 matches
Mail list logo
