And now try -inline-threshold=1024 ;-)
Reading -help-hidden sometimes helps.
Thanks. It is really game changer. I get my words about ranges
back.
On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 18:03:28 UTC, Nikolay wrote:
Results:
~/ldc2-0.12.0-linux-x86_64/bin/ldmd2 -O -release -inline
zip_test.d
./zip_test --limit 1000
…
0 - 0
1 - 764
And now try -inline-threshold=1024 ;-)
Reading -help-hidden sometimes helps.
I found that performance of ranges is miserable in many cases.
You should not use them if there is any chance for big/critical
computations. Actually I don't like to have two subsets of
language: one with good performance, and other with good
maintainability/readability. I have a couple thought
Am Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:02:28 +0100
schrieb "John Colvin" :
> On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 at 16:40:48 UTC, Joseph Rushton
> Wakeling wrote:
> > [* If I recall right, it's achievable by special-casing iota
> > when the increment is 1, but don't quote me on that.]
>
> That shouldn't be necessar
On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 at 16:40:48 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
[* If I recall right, it's achievable by special-casing iota
when the increment is 1, but don't quote me on that.]
That shouldn't be necessary if the iota operations are inlined
(which, if their not, is a much great
Am Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:40:39 +0100
schrieb Joseph Rushton Wakeling :
> On 11/12/13 11:10, John Colvin wrote:
> > A lot of the performance loss is down to missed optimisations, in particular
> > inlining.
>
> Simple example:
>
> foreach(i; iota(0, 10)) { ... }
>
> should be as fast as
>
>
On 11/12/13 11:10, John Colvin wrote:
A lot of the performance loss is down to missed optimisations, in particular
inlining.
Simple example:
foreach(i; iota(0, 10)) { ... }
should be as fast as
foreach(i; 0 .. 10) { ... }
but isn't. I remember Andrei noting that this ought to be ea
On Wednesday, 11 December 2013 at 07:29:39 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
Has anyone done any work on comparing the performance of ranges
vs using direct straightforward code(optimized in the sense of
the way ranges work but by hand).
e.g., How does filter compare to a simple loop over the
elements
Am Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:29:38 +0100
schrieb "Frustrated" :
>
> Has anyone done any work on comparing the performance of ranges
> vs using direct straightforward code(optimized in the sense of
> the way ranges work but by hand).
>
> e.g., How does filter compare to a simple loop over the element
Has anyone done any work on comparing the performance of ranges
vs using direct straightforward code(optimized in the sense of
the way ranges work but by hand).
e.g., How does filter compare to a simple loop over the elements
and comparing it. How does a a chain of UFCS compare to doing the
10 matches
Mail list logo
