Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: GCC vs. LLVM-GCC Benchmarks

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Couple of factors I would guess comes into play. LLVM is fairly young in development and the biggest improvements so far as performance concerning LLVM is the time to compile. Unfortunately we haven't seen any of those compile times in the tests.
    But do normal users really care?

    I think compile times should only be used as a test workload when comparing computers; using compile times to benchmark compilers is useless to most people (99%? more?).

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Someone mentioned there could be only one core used when comes to GCC and Ubuntu vs OS X benchmarks. Btw. I heard GCC is optimized to be good at some benchmarks, but I wonder if its better results have reflection in reality.
    The way timed compilation tests are written in PTS gcc should take full advantage of the available cores.

    For example the apache compile test:

    Code:
    \$TIMER_START
    make -s -j \$NUM_CPU_JOBS 2>&1
    \$TIMER_STOP" > time-compile-apache

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    But do normal users really care?

    I think compile times should only be used as a test workload when comparing computers; using compile times to benchmark compilers is useless to most people (99%? more?).
    Probably not, but for the most part 99% of users don't care about the delta difference on most of the benchmarks. If it runs, that's good enough for them. The exception being maybe the game benches where even then once your maxing out your monitor's capability everything else is purely for bragging rights.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    The way timed compilation tests are written in PTS gcc should take full advantage of the available cores.

    For example the apache compile test:

    Code:
    \$TIMER_START
    make -s -j \$NUM_CPU_JOBS 2>&1
    \$TIMER_STOP" > time-compile-apache
    Yes, I just looked at this

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10

    Default

    When building these tests, is there a way to also build and affect the C runtime library. While I can appreciate that many of these tests have "hard stuff" in their code, the performance of an app is always so dependent on the performance of it's underlying runtime library (for things like memcpy, strcmp, etc.) that I think it's worth a look.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
    When building these tests, is there a way to also build and affect the C runtime library.
    Hum, probably you can manage to override the system library with LD_PRELOAD (or LD_LIBRARY_PATH).

    Quote Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
    While I can appreciate that many of these tests have "hard stuff" in their code, the performance of an app is always so dependent on the performance of it's underlying runtime library (for things like memcpy, strcmp, etc.) that I think it's worth a look.
    For critical paths (like memcpy, strcmp, ...) the library is probably picking up the most appropriate hand-coded ASM version of the function

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    I think the description of llvm-gcc is incorrect. llvm-gcc back end is not a modified version of gcc, it's llvm. llvm-gcc front end is a modified version of gcc front end. Please confirm.

    And the results were really insightful.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    372

    Default

    Do a test of GCC vs Intel compiler and/or any other compiler. Compile time speed, run time speed, code size ... hmm..

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    I wonder how long it takes until Gentoo migrates to clang... Faster compile speed should be crucial there.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Can you guys do a comparison of modern gcc and llvm with Visual Studio and Intel's compiler? It would be interesting to see where the open source compilers are against the proprietary

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •