I ran the Rust and Zig implementations through a profiler and (at least on my machine, using Zig nightly 0.10.0-dev.4583+875e98a57) the vast majority of the time difference is from the number of calls to the GPU paint_tile_line function- there's some behavioral difference upstream in the emulator and the GPU modules are just not doing the same work.
For the benchmark 600 frames, the Rust emulator calls it 2500049 times, but the Zig emulator only calls it 1808121 times. This is very roughly the ratio between the reported times.
At least one source of this discrepancy is that the Zig emulator doesn't think any sprites are active, but that doesn't account for all of it, and I'm hitting some crashes trying to run it with the display, so I'm probably not going to investigate it further.
(I also hit the same sort of strange Zig compiler unreliability as some other comments have mentioned, where I had to add some logging in seemingly random places to get the Zig emulator to run at all.
And the argument parser just blatantly returns a dead pointer to the ROM path; when I first ran it it just gave "error: InvalidUtf8" until I tracked that down.)
For the benchmark 600 frames, the Rust emulator calls it 2500049 times, but the Zig emulator only calls it 1808121 times. This is very roughly the ratio between the reported times.
At least one source of this discrepancy is that the Zig emulator doesn't think any sprites are active, but that doesn't account for all of it, and I'm hitting some crashes trying to run it with the display, so I'm probably not going to investigate it further.
(I also hit the same sort of strange Zig compiler unreliability as some other comments have mentioned, where I had to add some logging in seemingly random places to get the Zig emulator to run at all.
And the argument parser just blatantly returns a dead pointer to the ROM path; when I first ran it it just gave "error: InvalidUtf8" until I tracked that down.)