On 6/3/11 7:42 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> DMD debug: 50s
> DMD optimized: 49s (-release -noboundscheck -O -inline -L/STACK:1280000000)
>
> That's around 1GB of stack memory.
> Compiling with GDC will make the app throw an exception at runtime due
> to the stack being blown, the error message isn't special but it's
> better than no error message.
>
> GDC debug: 1m:24s
> GDC optimized: 1m:12s (gdc -v2 -O3 -Wl,--stack,1280000000)
>
> I haven't tested the other ones. Does Go have a Windows compiler yet?

I think they do. But another good data point would be the C++ timings on the same machine.

Andrei

I've compiled the C++ example from google, but I had to remove the "-lc" option due to errors (what is this option anyway?).

gcc 4.4.0 with -O3: 1:50

SORRY, I meant gcc 4.5.2 not 4.4.0.

I can't compile bear's C++0x example, I get a ton of undefined
reference errors. I've tried with:
gcc -O3 -std=gnu++0x raw.cpp

Maybe he's using gcc 4.6 or I'm missing some flags.

On 6/3/11 8:05 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I've compiled the C++ example from google, but I had to remove the
> "-lc" option due to errors (what is this option anyway?).
>
> gcc 4.4.0 with -O3: 1:50

Hmm, it would be odd if the D version is more than twice faster than the C++ one. Wonder what's going on there.

Andrei

It seems I should have used g++:

g++ -O3 -std=gnu++0x -Wl,--stack,1280000000 raw.cpp

time: 2m:12s

I'll give a shot at compiling on Linux, maybe this is all MinGW's fault.

What do I use to accurately time an executable under Linux?

Running Ubuntu v10.10 x32 on Virtualbox with hardware virtualization, GCC v4.4.4 and DMD 2.053 installed.

DMD debug: 54s
DMD optimized: 47s

Google's C++ optimized: 27s (gcc -O3 -lc -lstdc++)
Bear's C++ optimized: 24s (g++ -O3 -std=gnu++0x)

So it's MinGW's fault apparently.

On 06/03/2011 08:47 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Running Ubuntu v10.10 x32 on Virtualbox with hardware virtualization,
> GCC v4.4.4 and DMD 2.053 installed.
>
> DMD debug: 54s
> DMD optimized: 47s
>
> Google's C++ optimized: 27s (gcc -O3 -lc -lstdc++)
> Bear's C++ optimized: 24s (g++ -O3 -std=gnu++0x)
>
> So it's MinGW's fault apparently.

Interesting. So now we have a run time comparable with C++'s run time in the paper. The implementation by bearophile has 721 lines. Once we have compilation times, binary size, and memory footprint, we have a good comparison point with the study in the paper.

Far as I can tell D comes in the second place after C++ at run time. With optimizations and all it could get significantly closer.


Thanks,

Andrei