Re: Benchmarks

2023-10-15 Thread Imperatorn via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 22:45:19 UTC, Imperatorn wrote: https://github.com/jinyus/related_post_gen Sequential processing time, less is better |Language| Time (5k posts) | 20k posts | 60k posts | Total | |:--:|:---:|:--:|:-:|::

Benchmarks

2023-10-13 Thread Imperatorn via Digitalmars-d-learn
https://github.com/jinyus/related_post_gen

D http benchmarks

2023-10-11 Thread Imperatorn via Digitalmars-d-learn
Just sharing https://github.com/tchaloupka/httpbench

Re: Preventing the Compiler from Optimizing Away Benchmarks

2023-03-13 Thread jmh530 via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 15:23:25 UTC, user1234 wrote: [snip] [1] https://theunixzoo.co.uk/blog/2021-10-14-preventing-optimisations.html that's illegal code. You mix GCC/LLVM syntax with D asm block and the front-end wont recognize that. LDC recognizes a syntax similar to what is descr

Re: Preventing the Compiler from Optimizing Away Benchmarks

2023-03-13 Thread user1234 via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Monday, 13 March 2023 at 14:17:57 UTC, jmh530 wrote: I was looking at [1] for ways to prevent the compiler from optimizing away code when trying to benchmark. It has the following C++ code as a simpler version: ``` inline BENCHMARK_ALWAYS_INLINE void DoNotOptimize(Tp& value) { asm volati

Preventing the Compiler from Optimizing Away Benchmarks

2023-03-13 Thread jmh530 via Digitalmars-d-learn
I was looking at [1] for ways to prevent the compiler from optimizing away code when trying to benchmark. It has the following C++ code as a simpler version: ``` inline BENCHMARK_ALWAYS_INLINE void DoNotOptimize(Tp& value) { asm volatile("" : "+r,m"(value) : : "memory"); } ``` I made an att

Re: want to know precise GC benchmarks

2019-10-02 Thread a11e99z via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 at 06:41:28 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: thanks for the detailed answer

Re: want to know precise GC benchmarks

2019-10-01 Thread Rainer Schuetze via Digitalmars-d-learn
On 01/10/2019 18:24, a11e99z wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 16:12:18 UTC, a11e99z wrote: >> does anybody some kind of benchmark to test conservative and precise GC? >> precise GC is better or not? is STW improving? Without false pointers the precise GC is usually a bit slower (by a few

Re: want to know precise GC benchmarks

2019-10-01 Thread Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 16:24:49 UTC, a11e99z wrote: why I want to know such info? CodinGame sometimes use time-limit for bot move for example 100ms, and bot will be disqualified in case no answer Simple solution: don't allocate every frame. The GC only runs when it needs to and it on

Re: want to know precise GC benchmarks

2019-10-01 Thread a11e99z via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 16:12:18 UTC, a11e99z wrote: does anybody some kind of benchmark to test conservative and precise GC? precise GC is better or not? is STW improving? and another question about GC and app parameters: program.exe “–DRT-gcopt=gc:precise parallel:4” “–DRT-scanDataSeg

want to know precise GC benchmarks

2019-10-01 Thread a11e99z via Digitalmars-d-learn
does anybody some kind of benchmark to test conservative and precise GC? precise GC is better or not? is STW improving?

some memory allocation/GC benchmarks here - fwiw

2015-04-01 Thread Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d-learn
(not translated into D yet) http://blog.mgm-tp.com/2013/12/benchmarking-g1-and-other-java-7-garbage-collectors/ http://www.mm-net.org.uk/resources/benchmarks.html http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/GC/sourcecode.html http://yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/benchmark.html it's possible we already have bett