Thread overview | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
December 29, 2006 DMD vs GDC | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
I ran some more rough benchmarks using code from http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ (Source is given when I could find the link -- source files can also be downloaded from the site as a package) Here are some of the results: Ackermann - GDC 2.6X faster and 19% less memory binary trees -http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=dlang&id=0 - DMD 5X faster, GDC 38% less memory fibonacci - GDC 15% faster and 11% less memory matrix - GDC 2X faster, GDC 12% less memory recursive -Source:http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=recursive&lang=dlang&id=0 - GDC 1.8X faster and 12.5% less memory partial sums -Source:http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4sandbox/benchmark.php?test=partialsums&lang=dlang - GDC 25% faster and 10% less memory method calls - DMD 2.6X faster, GDC 12% less memory dispatch - DMD 16% faster, GDC 12% less memory |
December 30, 2006 Re: DMD vs GDC | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to kmk | kmk wrote: Thanks, this's interesting. It also shows that Digital Mars backend doesn't handle recursive algorithms (ackermann,recursive show this) as well as GCC backend. I've already posted about it a while ago: http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=D&ar tnum=38840. Another interesting benchmark could be to compare GDC vs GCC and DMD vs DMC (i.e. D vs C++ with the same backend) -- AKhropov |
December 30, 2006 Re: DMD vs GDC | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to kmk | There is a huge difference between the two, which gets noticed as projects tend to grow: DMD will blow away GDC in terms of compile/link speed. This is a major factor why I'd currently prefer DMD over GDC. It is just so much nicer to work with a system which does not force you too often into a coffee break. But if I am offered something like "VDC" (D plus the MS Visual Studio C++ compiler as the backend), I'd be tempted. Imagine: top compile speed, top code efficiency paired with the ability to link directly to PE-COFF object code, Win32 DLLs plus some other advantages (maybe even an IDE ?). |
January 03, 2007 Re: DMD vs GDC | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Bob W | Bob W wrote: > There is a huge difference between the two, which gets > noticed as projects tend to grow: > > DMD will blow away GDC in terms of compile/link speed. > This is a major factor why I'd currently prefer DMD over > GDC. It is just so much nicer to work with a system which > does not force you too often into a coffee break. > > But if I am offered something like "VDC" (D plus the > MS Visual Studio C++ compiler as the backend), I'd be > tempted. > > Imagine: top compile speed, top code efficiency paired > with the ability to link directly to PE-COFF object code, > Win32 DLLs plus some other advantages (maybe even > an IDE ?). FWIW, a D-to-C compiler may be more useful in the end - or is that what you had in mind? That way, all the embedded platforms and other hard to port targets get a free ride - not just visual studio. :) Anyway, I think the concept has been brought up before, but the D beta release schedule probably squashed it flat before it got moving (as happened with a lot of other frontend projects). Now that D1.0 is out, that's no longer a problem. -- - EricAnderton at yahoo |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation