• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (19/19) Jul 16 2020 I've updated
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (2/4) Jul 16 2020 With DMD, that is.
• jmh530 (4/12) Jul 16 2020 How are the functions generated? I see something about
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (2/5) Jul 16 2020 Ah, I'll add that. Thanks
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (3/6) Jul 16 2020 Added here
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (5/8) Jul 16 2020 This is, of course, a very contrived benchmark but I had to pick
• jmh530 (2/10) Jul 16 2020 Thanks!
• IGotD- (5/8) Jul 16 2020 I don't think this comparison is fair as dmd is far behind when
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (17/27) Jul 17 2020 Both dmd and ldc have superior check stage (lexical, syntactic

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

I've updated

     https://github.com/nordlow/compiler-benchmark

with

- source variants with templated function variants for languages 
having generics
- stdout-printing in Markdown (used in README.md)
- benchmarks for the languages Zig and V



D's compiler `dmd` is still far ahead of all its competition 
especially when it
comes to default build (standard compilation) performance.

The performance of both GCC and Clang gets significanly worse 
with each new
release (currently 8, 9, 10 in the table below).

The generic C++ and D versions compiles about 1.5 to 2 times 
slower whereas the
generic Rust version interestingly is processed 2-3 times faster 
than the non-generic
version.

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 15:56:45 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
 The generic C++ and D versions compiles about 1.5 to 2 times 
 slower

With DMD, that is.

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 15:56:45 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
 I've updated

     https://github.com/nordlow/compiler-benchmark

 with

 - source variants with templated function variants for 
 languages having generics
 - stdout-printing in Markdown (used in README.md)
 - benchmarks for the languages Zig and V

 [snip]

How are the functions generated? I see something about 
function-depth, but it might be good to have an example in the 
readme.

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 18:27:54 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 How are the functions generated? I see something about 
 function-depth, but it might be good to have an example in the 
 readme.

Ah, I'll add that. Thanks

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 18:27:54 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 How are the functions generated? I see something about 
 function-depth, but it might be good to have an example in the 
 readme.

Added here

https://github.com/nordlow/compiler-benchmark#sample-generated-code

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 18:27:54 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 How are the functions generated? I see something about 
 function-depth, but it might be good to have an example in the 
 readme.

This is, of course, a very contrived benchmark but I had to pick 
something to get me started and I'll happily receive suggestions 
on how to improve the benchmarking-relevance of the generated 
code.

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 19:08:59 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 18:27:54 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 How are the functions generated? I see something about 
 function-depth, but it might be good to have an example in the 
 readme.

 This is, of course, a very contrived benchmark but I had to 
 pick something to get me started and I'll happily receive 
 suggestions on how to improve the benchmarking-relevance of the 
 generated code.

Thanks!

IGotD- <nise nise.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 15:56:45 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
 D's compiler `dmd` is still far ahead of all its competition 
 especially when it
 comes to default build (standard compilation) performance.

I don't think this comparison is fair as dmd is far behind when 
it comes to code generation compared to the competitors. What 
should be included are benchmarks done with LDC as well. Since 
you already have the D code, adding LDC should be pretty easy.

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 23:36:58 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 15:56:45 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
 D's compiler `dmd` is still far ahead of all its competition 
 especially when it
 comes to default build (standard compilation) performance.

 I don't think this comparison is fair as dmd is far behind when 
 it comes to code generation compared to the competitors. What 
 should be included are benchmarks done with LDC as well. Since 
 you already have the D code, adding LDC should be pretty easy.

Both dmd and ldc have superior check stage (lexical, syntactic 
and semantic analysis) because of a language designed in 
conjunction with the needs and limitations of a compiler. One 
key-property of such a design is that the D language is design to 
be a so called, single-pass language.

The compiler dmd is superior because of a super-fast but less 
qualitative code generation giving outstanding productivity 
incremental development. At that stage in the development cycle 
fast builds is much more important that optimized machine code. 
The machine code generated by dmd in this stage is sufficiently 
fast for the needs of the developer trying to be productive in 
this stage. That is by design, not by accident. I suggest you ask 
Walter Bright if you want more details around his design.

The compiler ldc is about 10x slower than dmd for the debug stage 
because of the larger overhead of the LLVM-backend and is often 
preferred when doing release builds.