www.digitalmars.com Home | Search | C & C++ | D | DMDScript | News Groups | index | prev | next
Archives

D Programming
D
D.gnu
digitalmars.D
digitalmars.D.bugs
digitalmars.D.dtl
digitalmars.D.dwt
digitalmars.D.announce
digitalmars.D.learn
digitalmars.D.debugger

C/C++ Programming
c++
c++.announce
c++.atl
c++.beta
c++.chat
c++.command-line
c++.dos
c++.dos.16-bits
c++.dos.32-bits
c++.idde
c++.mfc
c++.rtl
c++.stl
c++.stl.hp
c++.stl.port
c++.stl.sgi
c++.stlsoft
c++.windows
c++.windows.16-bits
c++.windows.32-bits
c++.wxwindows

digitalmars.empire
digitalmars.DMDScript

D.gnu - GDC vs DMD - performance

↑ ↓ ← kmk <kmk200us yahoo.com> writes:
How is the performance of GDC vs DMD? I ran some simple benchmarks
that showed DMD significantly faster but I'm wondering what other people  have
found.
Dec 28 2006
↑ ↓ → kmk <kmk200us yahoo.com> writes:
I suppose I should retract my original statement. 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, 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
Dec 29 2006