On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:03:27 +0300, Bill Baxter <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/1/7 Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com>:
>> Faster long divides!
>
> No progress on "faster long compiles" though?
>
> --bb

Small statistics on compilation time of my small project:

DMD2.021 - 16 seconds
DMD2.022 - 46 seconds
DMD2.023 - 15 seconds (and an Internal error: ..\ztc\cod4.c 357 on one of source code files) :)

V 1.039 compiles my dlibs fine, but I have not timed the compilation times yet.

The long divides are much faster than before and almost as the ones done by GCC, good work.

The timings of the division benchmark I have shown last time:
  DMD1.038: 63.7 s
  DMD1.039: 12.2 s
  GCC4.2.1: 11.1 s

Regarding the pure optimizations done by D2, how can the LDC compiler do the same? Are them done by the front-end?

Bye,
bearophile

bearophile wrote:
> The long divides are much faster than before and almost as the ones
> done by GCC, good work.
> 
> The timings of the division benchmark I have shown last time: DMD1.038: 63.7 s DMD1.039: 12.2 s GCC4.2.1: 11.1 s
> 
> Regarding the pure optimizations done by D2, how can the LDC compiler
> do the same? Are them done by the front-end?

I changed nothing with the compiler. I just rewrote the runtime long division function.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> (and an Internal error: ..\ztc\cod4.c 357 on one of source code files) :)

Bugzilla report, pls!

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:34:10 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> (and an Internal error: ..\ztc\cod4.c 357 on one of source code files) :)
>
> Bugzilla report, pls!

Already done.

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:10 PM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> V 1.039 compiles my dlibs fine, but I have not timed the compilation times yet.
>
> The long divides are much faster than before and almost as the ones done by GCC, good work.
>
> The timings of the division benchmark I have shown last time:
>  DMD1.038: 63.7 s
>  DMD1.039: 12.2 s
>  GCC4.2.1: 11.1 s
>
> Regarding the pure optimizations done by D2, how can the LDC compiler do the same? Are them done by the front-end?

Rockin'.  Compile times seem unchanged wrt DMD 1.037 here too. Partial IFTI here I come!

-- bb

Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> Bugzilla report, pls!
> 
> Already done.

Thanks!

On 07.01.2009 05:51, Walter Bright wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>  The D2 changelog says that he undid the fix to 2500, which might be
>>  the cause.  But no word on whether it was the cause, or if D1 got the
>>  revert as well.
>
> D1 got the same reversion.

1.039 hangs while trying to build my DWT app, just like 1.038 did.  It just seems to never finish, so I kill it after a while.  Don't know if it's related to this issue or not.

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>> Regarding the pure optimizations done by D2, how can the LDC compiler do the same? Are them done by the front-end?
>
> I changed nothing with the compiler. I just rewrote the runtime long division function.
>
>

Can you say "non sequitur"?

He asked about "pure" optimization, not long division.

It appears that you've also fixed http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2359 :D /* which might've been the same issue as http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2527 */

Perhaps I can finally update from 1.031 :> Thanks a bunch!

-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenode