• kmk (24/24) Dec 29 2006 I ran some more rough benchmarks using code from
• Andrey Khropov (10/10) Dec 30 2006 kmk wrote:
• Bob W (13/13) Dec 30 2006 There is a huge difference between the two, which gets
• Pragma (11/27) Jan 03 2007 FWIW, a D-to-C compiler may be more useful in the end - or is that what

kmk <kmk200us yahoo.com> writes:

I ran some more rough benchmarks using code from
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/

(Source is given when I could find the link -- source files can also be
downloaded from the site as a package)

Here are some of the results:

Ackermann
- GDC 2.6X faster and 19% less memory

binary trees
-http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=dlang&id=0
- DMD 5X faster, GDC 38% less memory

fibonacci
- GDC 15% faster and 11% less memory

matrix
- GDC 2X faster, GDC 12% less memory

recursive
-Source:http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=recursive&lang=dlang&id=0
- GDC 1.8X faster and 12.5% less memory

partial sums
-Source:http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4sandbox/benchmark.php?test=partialsums&lang=dlang
- GDC 25% faster and 10% less memory

method calls
- DMD 2.6X faster, GDC 12% less memory

dispatch
- DMD 16% faster, GDC 12% less memory

"Andrey Khropov" <andkhropov_nosp m_mtu-net.ru> writes:

kmk wrote:

Thanks, this's interesting. It also shows that Digital Mars backend doesn't
handle recursive algorithms (ackermann,recursive show this) as well as GCC
backend. I've already posted about it a while ago:
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=D&ar
tnum=38840.

Another interesting benchmark could be to compare GDC vs GCC and DMD vs DMC
(i.e. D vs C++ with the same backend)

-- 
AKhropov

"Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:

There is a huge difference between the two, which gets
noticed as projects tend to grow:

DMD will blow away GDC in terms of compile/link speed.
This is a major factor why I'd currently prefer DMD over
GDC. It is just so much nicer to work with a system which
does not force you too often into a coffee break.

But if I am offered something like "VDC" (D plus the
MS Visual Studio C++ compiler as the backend), I'd be
tempted.

Imagine: top compile speed, top code efficiency paired
with the ability to link directly to PE-COFF object code,
Win32 DLLs plus some other advantages (maybe even
an IDE ?).

Pragma <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> writes:

Bob W wrote:
 There is a huge difference between the two, which gets
 noticed as projects tend to grow:
 
 DMD will blow away GDC in terms of compile/link speed.
 This is a major factor why I'd currently prefer DMD over
 GDC. It is just so much nicer to work with a system which
 does not force you too often into a coffee break.
 
 But if I am offered something like "VDC" (D plus the
 MS Visual Studio C++ compiler as the backend), I'd be
 tempted.
 
 Imagine: top compile speed, top code efficiency paired
 with the ability to link directly to PE-COFF object code,
 Win32 DLLs plus some other advantages (maybe even
 an IDE ?).

FWIW, a D-to-C compiler may be more useful in the end - or is that what 
you had in mind?

That way, all the embedded platforms and other hard to port targets get 
a free ride - not just visual studio. :)

Anyway, I think the concept has been brought up before, but the D beta 
release schedule probably squashed it flat before it got moving (as 
happened with a lot of other frontend projects).  Now that D1.0 is out, 
that's no longer a problem.

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo