digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 12137] New: [REG DMD2.065-b3] Huge decline in performance
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (33/33) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/18) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/8) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/16) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/17) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/25) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/16) Feb 12 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/14) Feb 13 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Feb 14 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/12) Feb 15 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Feb 15 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/9) Feb 15 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Feb 17 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/8) Feb 18 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 Summary: [REG DMD2.065-b3] Huge decline in performance Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: regression Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: sludwig outerproduct.org PST --- When compiling vibe.d, the performance and memory requirements of DMD got significantly worse (about 7x slower and up to 1.5x more memory requirement). Some measurements in Windows/32: DMD 2.064: 5.5 s with about 780 MiB memory used DMD 2.065-b1: 36 s with about 880 MiB memory used DMD 2.065-b3: 40 s with about 880 MiB memory used Others report even higher numbers for memory usage [1] [2]. This gets critical, as DMD-32 now fails to compile a number of existing projects due to out-of-memory errors. Simplest way to reproduce is with the latest DUB release candidate [3]: $ dub fetch vibe-d --version=0.7.19-beta.3 $ dub build vibe-d --force -v [1]: http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.vibed/thread/11179/ [2]: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/52EFE127.8070504 yahoo.com?page=4#post-uckojuzmhytcyjtotomt:40forum.dlang.org [3]: http://code.dlang.org/download -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137When compiling vibe.d, the performance and memory requirements of DMD got significantly worse (about 7x slower and up to 1.5x more memory requirement). Some measurements in Windows/32: DMD 2.064: 5.5 s with about 780 MiB memory used DMD 2.065-b1: 36 s with about 880 MiB memory used DMD 2.065-b3: 40 s with about 880 MiB memory usedI'm really not sure what is the problem. In my windows PC, checkout v2.064 tag on dmd/druntime/phobos repositories, then the built environment will cause same issue. But the released 2.064 environment (extracted from zip file) does not cause the issue... -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 PST --- Interesting. Could it be that the last release was built using VisualStudio instead of DMC? Even if that seems to be almost to much of a difference for that to explain it... -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 yebblies <yebblies gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yebblies gmail.com Any chance the failing dmds are being built with the old snn.lib? -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137Interesting. Could it be that the last release was built using VisualStudio instead of DMC? Even if that seems to be almost to much of a difference for that to explain it...I'm using dmc for building dmd. So it would be unrelated.Any chance the failing dmds are being built with the old snn.lib?Unfortunately no. The built dmd.exe from the 2.064 released binaries (dmd2/windows/bin and dmd/windows/lib) causes same issue. Note that, I'm using the latest dmc release: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/Digital_Mars_C++/Patch/dm857c.zip -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137But really, what else could it be? If you're compiling the same 2.064 code and getting a slower compiler out, what else could do that? I assume you were using 2.064 druntime/phobos to test the 2.064 compiler. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------Any chance the failing dmds are being built with the old snn.lib?Unfortunately no. The built dmd.exe from the 2.064 released binaries (dmd2/windows/bin and dmd/windows/lib) causes same issue. Note that, I'm using the latest dmc release: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/Digital_Mars_C++/Patch/dm857c.zip
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137snn.lib is in dmd/windows/lib, and even if I replace the directory with the one in the released 2.064, slow compiler will be built. So I really not sure what is wrong...But really, what else could it be? If you're compiling the same 2.064 code and getting a slower compiler out, what else could do that?Any chance the failing dmds are being built with the old snn.lib?Unfortunately no. The built dmd.exe from the 2.064 released binaries (dmd2/windows/bin and dmd/windows/lib) causes same issue. Note that, I'm using the latest dmc release: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/Digital_Mars_C++/Patch/dm857c.zipI assume you were using 2.064 druntime/phobos to test the 2.064 compiler.Yes. I checkout v2.064 tag in dmd/druntime/phobos repositories, then build them with the built (== slow) 2.064 dmd.exe. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137snn.lib is in dmd/windows/lib, and even if I replace the directory with the one in the released 2.064, slow compiler will be built. So I really not sure what is wrong...Is it possible the snn.lib from the 2.064 zip is also the old snn.lib? I have CD81574FAA1B6876E053A5C3A16C8DFBF6D69100 in my dmc dir and D65F7172F521940828C08EB9F5D09214490DBFAB in my dmd2\windows\bin dir. I'm sure one of these is the wrong one, but they both came from recent zips (about a month ago) -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 12 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 Richard Webb <webby beardmouse.org.uk> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |webby beardmouse.org.uk PST ---Is it possible the snn.lib from the 2.064 zip is also the old snn.lib?The snn.lib in 2.064.2 is 555KB and the one in the 2.065.0-b3 zip is 561KB. From what I recall, the smaller one is the one with the malloc fixes. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 13 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugzilla digitalmars.com 20:45:03 PST --- The correct snn.lib is: 08/03/2013 12:20 AM 567,808 snn.lib -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 14 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 ---The correct snn.lib is: 08/03/2013 12:20 AM 567,808 snn.libOK, understand. I copied snn.lib from dmd2.064.zip to c:/dm/lib (dmc library directory), then re-compile dmd.exe. Then the generated dmd does not cause the issue. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 15 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code dawg.eu From where do I get the correct snn.lib? -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 15 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 ---From where do I get the correct snn.lib?Currently it is in 2.064.zip. http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/dmd.2.064.zip -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 15 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED Fixed with https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/66. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 17 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12137 It would be nice to be able to test this. Is there a way to get the version of snn.lib? If not, could one be added? Then we could at least have a unittest rather than a silent performance regression. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 18 2014