Jump to page: 1 26  
Page
Thread overview
DMD compilation speed
Mar 29, 2015
Martin Krejcirik
Mar 30, 2015
Walter Bright
Mar 30, 2015
weaselcat
Mar 30, 2015
Walter Bright
Apr 09, 2015
Gary Willoughby
Apr 10, 2015
Martin Nowak
Apr 10, 2015
Gary Willoughby
Apr 09, 2015
John Colvin
Mar 30, 2015
Martin Nowak
Mar 30, 2015
Martin Krejcirik
Mar 30, 2015
Jacob Carlborg
Mar 30, 2015
Mathias Lang
Mar 30, 2015
lobo
Mar 30, 2015
lobo
Mar 31, 2015
Vladimir Panteleev
Mar 31, 2015
Jake The Baker
Mar 31, 2015
Adam D. Ruppe
Apr 01, 2015
Jake The Baker
Apr 01, 2015
lobo
Apr 01, 2015
Daniel Murphy
Mar 31, 2015
lobo
Apr 01, 2015
Daniel Murphy
Mar 30, 2015
H. S. Teoh
Mar 30, 2015
w0rp
Mar 31, 2015
deadalnix
Mar 31, 2015
deadalnix
Mar 31, 2015
Martin Nowak
Mar 31, 2015
deadalnix
Mar 31, 2015
weaselcat
Mar 31, 2015
Daniel Murphy
Mar 31, 2015
deadalnix
Mar 31, 2015
Daniel Murphy
Mar 31, 2015
ketmar
Mar 31, 2015
Vladimir Panteleev
Mar 31, 2015
ketmar
Mar 31, 2015
Daniel Murphy
Mar 31, 2015
Temtaime
Mar 31, 2015
Temtaime
Mar 31, 2015
ketmar
Mar 31, 2015
deadalnix
Mar 31, 2015
ketmar
Mar 31, 2015
John Colvin
Mar 31, 2015
Martin Nowak
Mar 31, 2015
deadalnix
Apr 01, 2015
Random D-user
Apr 01, 2015
ketmar
Apr 01, 2015
weaselcat
Apr 01, 2015
deadalnix
Apr 01, 2015
ketmar
Apr 09, 2015
w0rp
Mar 31, 2015
Jacob Carlborg
Mar 31, 2015
Daniel Murphy
Mar 31, 2015
Temtaime
Mar 30, 2015
Mathias Lang
March 29, 2015
It seems like every DMD release makes compilation slower. This time I see 10.8s vs 7.8s on my little project. I know this is generally least of concern, and D1's lighting-fast times are long gone, but since Walter often claims D's superior compilation speeds, maybe some profiling is in order ?
March 30, 2015
On 3/29/2015 4:14 PM, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
> It seems like every DMD release makes compilation slower. This time I see 10.8s
> vs 7.8s on my little project. I know this is generally least of concern, and
> D1's lighting-fast times are long gone, but since Walter often claims D's
> superior compilation speeds, maybe some profiling is in order ?

Sigh. Two things happen constantly:

1. object file sizes creep up
2. compilation speed slows down

It's like rust on your car. Fixing it requires constant vigilance.
March 30, 2015
On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 00:12:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/29/2015 4:14 PM, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
>> It seems like every DMD release makes compilation slower. This time I see 10.8s
>> vs 7.8s on my little project. I know this is generally least of concern, and
>> D1's lighting-fast times are long gone, but since Walter often claims D's
>> superior compilation speeds, maybe some profiling is in order ?
>
> Sigh. Two things happen constantly:
>
> 1. object file sizes creep up
> 2. compilation speed slows down
>
> It's like rust on your car. Fixing it requires constant vigilance.

would having benchmarks help keep this under control/make regressions easier to find?
March 30, 2015
On 3/29/2015 5:14 PM, weaselcat wrote:
> would having benchmarks help keep this under control/make regressions easier to
> find?

benchmarks would help.
March 30, 2015
On 03/30/2015 01:14 AM, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
> It seems like every DMD release makes compilation slower. This time I see 10.8s vs 7.8s on my little project. I know this is generally least of concern, and D1's lighting-fast times are long gone, but since Walter often claims D's superior compilation speeds, maybe some profiling is in order ?

25% slowdown is severe, can you share the project and probably file a bug report?
March 30, 2015
Is it only DMD compile time or DMD + ld ? ld can be very slow sometimes.

2015-03-30 1:14 GMT+02:00 Martin Krejcirik via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:

> It seems like every DMD release makes compilation slower. This time I see 10.8s vs 7.8s on my little project. I know this is generally least of concern, and D1's lighting-fast times are long gone, but since Walter often claims D's superior compilation speeds, maybe some profiling is in order ?
>


March 30, 2015
Here is one example:

Orange d5b2e0127c67f50bd885ee43a7dd61dd418b1661
https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orange.git
make

2.065.0
real    0m9.028s
user    0m7.972s
sys     0m0.940s

2.066.1
real    0m10.796s
user    0m9.629s
sys     0m1.056s

2.067.0
real    0m13.543s
user    0m12.097s
sys     0m1.348s
March 30, 2015
On 2015-03-30 18:09, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
> Here is one example:
>
> Orange d5b2e0127c67f50bd885ee43a7dd61dd418b1661
> https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orange.git
> make
>
> 2.065.0
> real    0m9.028s
> user    0m7.972s
> sys     0m0.940s
>
> 2.066.1
> real    0m10.796s
> user    0m9.629s
> sys     0m1.056s
>
> 2.067.0
> real    0m13.543s
> user    0m12.097s
> sys     0m1.348s

These are the timings for compiling the unit tests without linking. It passes all the files to DMD in one command. The make file invokes DMD once per file.

1.076
real	0m0.212s
user	0m0.187s
sys	0m0.022s

2.065.0
real	0m0.426s
user	0m0.357s
sys	0m0.065s

2.066.1
real	0m0.470s
user	0m0.397s
sys	0m0.064s

2.067.0
real	0m0.510s
user	0m0.435s
sys	0m0.074s

It might not be fair to compare with D1 since it's not exactly the same code.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
March 30, 2015
On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 23:14:31 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
> It seems like every DMD release makes compilation slower. This time I see 10.8s vs 7.8s on my little project. I know this is generally least of concern, and D1's lighting-fast times are long gone, but since Walter often claims D's superior compilation speeds, maybe some profiling is in order ?

I'm finding memory usage the biggest problem for me. 3s speed increase is not nice but an increase of 500MB RAM usage with DMD 2.067 over 2.066 means I can no longer build one of my projects.

bye,
lobo



March 30, 2015
On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 22:39:51 UTC, lobo wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 23:14:31 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
>> It seems like every DMD release makes compilation slower. This time I see 10.8s vs 7.8s on my little project. I know this is generally least of concern, and D1's lighting-fast times are long gone, but since Walter often claims D's superior compilation speeds, maybe some profiling is in order ?
>
> I'm finding memory usage the biggest problem for me. 3s speed increase is not nice but an increase of 500MB RAM usage with DMD 2.067 over 2.066 means I can no longer build one of my projects.
>
> bye,
> lobo

I should add that I am on a 32-bit machine with 4GB RAM. I just ran some tests measuring RAM usage:

DMD 2.067 ~4.2GB (fails here so not sure of the full amount required)
DMD 2.066 ~3.7GB (maximum)
DMD 2.065 ~3.1GB (maximum)

It was right on the edge with 2.066 anyway but this trend of more RAM usage seems to also be occurring with each DMD release.

bye,
lobo
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5 6