On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 17:48:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/6/2013 5:13 AM, Richard Webb wrote:
>> It's possible that other library routines are causing some of the remaining
>> difference from the MSVC build (e.g. the profiler suggests that the DMC build
>> spends somewhat more time inside memcpy than the MSVC build).
>>
>> Not sure if it's down to implementation or optimization though - might be down
>> to intrinsics/inlining and such? (the proflie for the DMC build says it's using
>> ~1% of its time inside strlen and the profile for the MSVC build doesn't mention
>> it at all, which i guess is because it's using an intrinsic version).
>
>
> If it's inlined then it won't show up in the profile. And yes, it's possible MSVC has a faster memcpy(). After all, enormous effort has been poured into memcpy().

If you use a profiler with line or instruction granularity
(like perf on Linux), it will show up. On Windows, that would probably
be VTune and CodeAnalyst.

On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 18:38:43 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 17:48:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/6/2013 5:13 AM, Richard Webb wrote:
>>> It's possible that other library routines are causing some of the remaining
>>> difference from the MSVC build (e.g. the profiler suggests that the DMC build
>>> spends somewhat more time inside memcpy than the MSVC build).
>>>
>>> Not sure if it's down to implementation or optimization though - might be down
>>> to intrinsics/inlining and such? (the proflie for the DMC build says it's using
>>> ~1% of its time inside strlen and the profile for the MSVC build doesn't mention
>>> it at all, which i guess is because it's using an intrinsic version).
>>
>>
>> If it's inlined then it won't show up in the profile. And yes, it's possible MSVC has a faster memcpy(). After all, enormous effort has been poured into memcpy().
>
> If you use a profiler with line or instruction granularity
> (like perf on Linux), it will show up. On Windows, that would probably
> be VTune and CodeAnalyst.

(obviously, as a part of the function it was inlined into,
but you'll get the time consumed at lines/instructions from the inlined function)

On Saturday, August 03, 2013 14:55:29 Walter Bright wrote:
> The execrable existing implementation was scrapped, and the new one uses
> Windows HeapAlloc().
> 
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/snn.lib
> 
> This is for testing porpoises, and of course for those that Feel Da Need For Speed.

But what if I prefer to test dolphins? ;)

- Jonathan M Davis


P.S. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

On 8/3/2013 3:28 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 14:55:29 Walter Bright wrote:
>> This is for testing porpoises, and of course for those that Feel Da Need For
>> Speed.
>
> But what if I prefer to test dolphins? ;)

They all look alike anyway, what's the difference?