www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - DMD 1.039 slowness...

reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
DMD 1.038/1.039 slowness is still there in DMD 1.040.

A 1 minute build with 1.037 turns into
a >12 minute build with 1.040 (not sure how long exactly, I got bored
waiting to send this email)

Also this change:
* Separated bin and lib directories into windows, linux, and osx.

while probably for the better, is likely to break a lot of installers
and install instructions that people have written for DMD.

It broke the post-install scripts I always run after installing a new
DMD, and means I will need to update the path to DMD in various
places.

--bb
Feb 15 2009
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 DMD 1.038/1.039 slowness is still there in DMD 1.040.
 
 A 1 minute build with 1.037 turns into
 a >12 minute build with 1.040 (not sure how long exactly, I got bored
 waiting to send this email)



I don't know why that might be, so I need an example.



 Also this change:
 * Separated bin and lib directories into windows, linux, and osx.
 
 while probably for the better, is likely to break a lot of installers
 and install instructions that people have written for DMD.
 
 It broke the post-install scripts I always run after installing a new
 DMD, and means I will need to update the path to DMD in various
 places.



I know and I'm sorry about that, but I don't see a better way moving 
forward.
Feb 15 2009
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 DMD 1.038/1.039 slowness is still there in DMD 1.040.

 A 1 minute build with 1.037 turns into
 a >12 minute build with 1.040 (not sure how long exactly, I got bored
 waiting to send this email)






 Was this report no help?
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2582



A smaller one would be much better.
Feb 15 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Do you have a way to build dmd with debugging symbols that MSVC can
 read, and if so would it help to get a stack trace of the place where
 it's stuck?



I emailed one to you. You can use windbg.exe on it (I do).
Feb 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
 Also this change:
 * Separated bin and lib directories into windows, linux, and osx.

 while probably for the better, is likely to break a lot of installers
 and install instructions that people have written for DMD.

 It broke the post-install scripts I always run after installing a new
 DMD, and means I will need to update the path to DMD in various
 places.



 I know and I'm sorry about that, but I don't see a better way moving 
 forward.



I think you should have left the bin and lib folders, and instead make the 
OS folders subfolders of bin and lib. It seems odd to me mixing OS-names 
with the other categories.

L.
Feb 15 2009
parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 16.02.2009 05:39, Lionello Lunesu wrote:

  Also this change:
  * Separated bin and lib directories into windows, linux, and osx.

  while probably for the better, is likely to break a lot of installers
  and install instructions that people have written for DMD.

  It broke the post-install scripts I always run after installing a new
  DMD, and means I will need to update the path to DMD in various
  places.



  I know and I'm sorry about that, but I don't see a better way moving
  forward.



 I think you should have left the bin and lib folders, and instead make the
 OS folders subfolders of bin and lib. It seems odd to me mixing OS-names
 with the other categories.



I like the layout, makes it easier to know and delete what you don't 
need on your system.
Feb 15 2009
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Also this change:
 * Separated bin and lib directories into windows, linux, and osx.

 while probably for the better, is likely to break a lot of installers
 and install instructions that people have written for DMD.

 It broke the post-install scripts I always run after installing a new
 DMD, and means I will need to update the path to DMD in various
 places.



 I know and I'm sorry about that, but I don't see a better way moving 
 forward.



Three downloads ? Or maybe 4, if one just wants the frontend source...

--anders
Feb 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 DMD 1.038/1.039 slowness is still there in DMD 1.040.

 A 1 minute build with 1.037 turns into
 a >12 minute build with 1.040 (not sure how long exactly, I got bored
 waiting to send this email)



 I don't know why that might be, so I need an example.



It's still chugging after more than an hour here, but mem use is
steady at 143,828K.  So it may just be caught in an infinite loop.

I have a little more time now then when this first came up, so I'll
see if I can come up with some kind of repro.


 Also this change:
 * Separated bin and lib directories into windows, linux, and osx.

 while probably for the better, is likely to break a lot of installers
 and install instructions that people have written for DMD.

 It broke the post-install scripts I always run after installing a new
 DMD, and means I will need to update the path to DMD in various
 places.



 I know and I'm sorry about that, but I don't see a better way moving
 forward.



Maybe just put it in bold or something in the change log? Or put
"WARNING:" in front of it?   I saw it there, but it totally did not
jump out at me as something meant my normal operating procedures would
all be broken.

--bb
Feb 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> wrote:

 I have a little more time now then when this first came up, so I'll
 see if I can come up with some kind of repro.



Damnit.  I gotta stop reading the internet.
That should be "a little more time now *than* when this first came up".

--bb
Feb 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 DMD 1.038/1.039 slowness is still there in DMD 1.040.

 A 1 minute build with 1.037 turns into
 a >12 minute build with 1.040 (not sure how long exactly, I got bored
 waiting to send this email)



 I don't know why that might be, so I need an example.



Was this report no help?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2582

--bb
Feb 15 2009
prev sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 DMD 1.038/1.039 slowness is still there in DMD 1.040.

 A 1 minute build with 1.037 turns into
 a >12 minute build with 1.040 (not sure how long exactly, I got bored
 waiting to send this email)



 I don't know why that might be, so I need an example.



 Was this report no help?

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2582



 A smaller one would be much better.



Do you have a way to build dmd with debugging symbols that MSVC can
read, and if so would it help to get a stack trace of the place where
it's stuck?

--bb
Feb 15 2009