Building DMD with MSVC results in a compiler that runs MUCH MUCH faster. In the interest of making DMD releases as fast as possible, this should be standardised.

Manu:

> Building DMD with MSVC results in a compiler that runs MUCH MUCH faster.
> In the interest of making DMD releases as fast as possible, this should be
> standardised.

How much faster?
And how much time does it take to compile DMD itself? I compile DMD almost every day, so I am interested in keeping this time quite low.

(On Windows I use G++ v.4.8, isn't it good enough to compile DMD, instead of MSVC?)

Bye,
bearophile

On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 23:32:36 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Building DMD with MSVC results in a compiler that runs MUCH MUCH faster.

... Numbers?

Purely out of academic curiosity, as I'm a GNU/Linux user :-)

On 1 June 2013 12:02, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:

> Manu:
>
>
>  Building DMD with MSVC results in a compiler that runs MUCH MUCH faster.
>> In the interest of making DMD releases as fast as possible, this should be standardised.
>>
>
> How much faster?
> And how much time does it take to compile DMD itself? I compile DMD almost
> every day, so I am interested in keeping this time quite low.
>
> (On Windows I use G++ v.4.8, isn't it good enough to compile DMD, instead
> of MSVC?)
>

Are the releases not built with DMC? Last time I tried to build DMD, it was
configured to use DMC by default.
I'm sure GCC would also be fine.

Am 01.06.2013 04:13, schrieb Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
> On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 23:32:36 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> Building DMD with MSVC results in a compiler that runs MUCH MUCH faster.
>
> ... Numbers?
>
> Purely out of academic curiosity, as I'm a GNU/Linux user :-)

I haved measured it exactly but its alt least twice as fast.