"Ilya Minkov" wrote:
> but it may be the fault of current front-end
> or of the used back-end.

It is the back-end. I did only one run witch dmc
on the C source and got the same impressive performancce
for long math as with dmd.

Astonishingly dmc and gcc rejected the C++ source,
because the run index might be out of bounds. So I
wonder what VC++ did with the source.

So long.

It's meaningless if you're performing them on different machines.

"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c0gnum$1ugh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Results of a reported Benchmark on a Pentium 4-M, 2 GHz, WinXP Pro SP1:
>
> Python/Psyco        13.1
> gcc C               14.9
> Java 1.3.1          22.1
> Python/interpreted  47.1
> Java 1.4.2          57.1
>
> My result on a Duron, 700 MHZ, Win98SE:
>
> dmd 0.79             9.54
>
> All results in seconds. Details will follow.
>
> So long.
>

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:48:51 +1100, Matthew wrote:

> It's meaningless if you're performing them on different machines.

Meanwhile I have given the results on the same machine: 19.6 vs 9.54.

What do you mean with meaningless?

So long.

Following the benchmark, which can be found under
http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5602&page=1
the benchmark tested five criteria:
integer math, long math, double math, trigonometric functions, file io

I only take into account the first four. The unweighted geometric mean of the quotients of the time needed for the program compiled by dmd and of the time needed by the program compiled by Visual C++ yields an estimated performance for dmd of a

        2,59-fold

of the time needed by the reference compiler Visual C++.

The ordered ranking of the used compilers follows:

Visual C++     1
Visual Basic   1.43
Visual C#      1.43
Visual J#      1.43
gcc C          1.77
Java 1.4.2     2.04
Java 1.3.1     2.58
dmd 0.79(est)  2.59
Python/psyco   8.78
Python        34.1


Now the relative results for gcc and dmd:

            int    long   double  trig      geometric mean
Visual C++  1      1       1      1         1
gcc C       1.021  1.532   1.484  4.257     1.77
dmd(est)    1.039  5.691   3.688  2.074     2.59

The estimated timing results for dmd on the benchmark machine are:

            int    long   double  trig
dmd(est)    9.97   107    23.6    7.26   (all values in seconds)

This estimated timing results are calculated by compiling the source code of the benchmark by the gcc(same version) on my machine and running it. The runs yield the following timing results `gcc.mine' in seconds for the four tests:

            int    long   double  trig
gcc.mine    18.1   46.9   16.6   19.6

Then the code of the benchmark was adopted to the syntax of D and compiled by dmd 0.79 and run on my machine, yielding the following timing results `dmd.mine' in seconds for the four tests:

            int    long   double  trig
dmd.mine    18.4   176    41.3    9.54

The benchmark results from gcc for the four tests are `gcc.rep' in seconds

            int    long   double  trig
gcc.rep     9.8    28.8   9.5    14.9

From these  three values the estimated benchmark result for each test is computed using the formula

      dmd(est) := dmd.mine * gcc.rep / gcc.mine


The values for gcc.mine and dmd.mine where obtained as follows:

compiling the source with 'gcc -march=pentium -mno-cygwin -s -O3' under cygwin and running it three times on a command prompt on a nearly empty machine yielded the following:

                               gcc.mine
int:     18130, 18130, 18180 -> 18.1
long:    46850, 46900, 46850 -> 46.9
double:  16640, 16590, 16640 -> 16.6
trig:    19610, 19610, 19670 -> 19.6

compiling the adapted source  with 'dmd -O' and running it three times on a comand prompt yielded the following:

                                    d.mine
int:     18410,  18404,  18434 ->  18.4
long:   174497, 174534, 174563 -> 175
double:  41283,  41278,  41255 ->  41.3
trig:     9537,   9544,   9541 ->   9.5i4



The code of the benchmark is located at:
 http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~cowell/research/benchmark/code/


The source adapted for D is not attached because of the possible copyright infringement of the benchmark creator..


NOTE:

also gcc was adviced in the original benchmark to make use of the SSE2, this  seemed not to work. Otherwise dmd should even score better

So long.