Andreas Ericsson wrote:
quoted text
> Well, when the ease-of-coding vs the exec-speed of D vs C is that of
> C vs asm, C will be dead fairly soon. However, since C is so ingrained
> in every language designer's head, I find that unlikely to happen any
> time soon.

You can write "C" in D, and you'll get exactly the same (performance) 
results. After all, D and C share the same optimizer and code generator 
(for both implementations of D), and when the same intermediate code is 
presented, you'll get the same results.

That's why when people benchmark D against C, they deliberately do NOT 
write the D version in a C'ish manner, but refactor the code into what 
would be a more D'ish style.

There's no way to write assembler in C.


quoted text
> Interesting. I recently did a spot of work comparing various string-hashing
> algorithms. Perhaps I should head over to the ld camp and see if I can 
> help.

I humbly suggest running a profiler over ld before spending time fixing 
the wrong thing <g>. I haven't looked at the ld source, but being 
experienced in similar projects I'd hazard a guess that there won't be a 
quick fix to ld's speed problems.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html