Comment by amedvednikov
3 years ago
Can you elaborate how language features failed V? And what claims were extraordinary?
Like the language compiling itself in <1s? It's true and you can verify it yourself:
3 years ago
Can you elaborate how language features failed V? And what claims were extraordinary?
Like the language compiling itself in <1s? It's true and you can verify it yourself:
Look, you are doing what I've just said not to do. I have nothing to say because the OP did most of claims already, you should directly respond to the OP.
And you are slightly altering the very claim you've already said; the OP specificially tests the claim that "V compiles [...] ~1 million (x86 and tcc backends) lines of code per second per CPU core", which I can easily verify on my machine (1m_helloworld.v took 25.5 and 15.5 seconds to compile under the same settings). To be fair these test files are edge cases you can easily dismiss (ProTip: you can make your advertisements more accurate), but edge cases show the weakness of your design and you should not confront them.
You made a claim:
> extraordinary claims failed V.
I asked you to list such claims. You fail to do so.
There's no way it takes 15s to compile 1m_helloworld.v. You're probably using a debug build of V.
What's your hardware? CPU/SSD.
> There's no way it takes 15s to compile 1m_helloworld.v. You're probably using a debug build of V.
You don't have to guess because I can give you my log. I have exactly followed what the OP did, except for more recent revision because I couldn't get it compiled in my environment.
I have also verified that TCC was indeed in use:
(I gave up when the gcc memory usage ballooned up to 20 GB.)
> What's your hardware? CPU/SSD.
i7-7700 3.60 GHz, 48 GB of RAM, SSD in use, Windows 10 WSL (that's probably why kernel time is higher than average, otherwise my userland time agrees with the OP).
10 replies →