Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: Compiler Benchmarks Of GCC, LLVM-GCC, DragonEgg, Clang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,233

    Default Compiler Benchmarks Of GCC, LLVM-GCC, DragonEgg, Clang

    Phoronix: Compiler Benchmarks Of GCC, LLVM-GCC, DragonEgg, Clang

    LLVM 2.8 was released last month with the Clang compiler having feature-complete C++ support, enhancements to the DragonEgg GCC plug-in, a near feature-complete alternative to libstdc++, a drop-in system assembler, ARM code-generation improvements, and many other changes. With there being great interest in the Low-Level Virtual Machine, we have conducted a large LLVM-focused compiler comparison at Phoronix of GCC with versions 4.2.1 through 4.6-20101030, GCC 4.5.1 using the DragonEgg 2.8 plug-in, LLVM-GCC with LLVM 2.8 and GCC 4.2, and lastly with Clang on LLVM 2.8.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15422

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    174

    Default

    What happened there at graphics magic tests? Do the newer gccs utilize OpenMP that much better?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PL
    Posts
    907

    Default

    While LLVM/Clang is not yet decisively faster than GCC, it is continuing to make great progress and does boast a different feature-set and focus from the GNU Compiler Collection.
    this template footer found in nearly every phoronix article, sounds like "please disregard this article, it's going to be obsolete soon"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    237

    Default

    quite nice.
    it seems llvm likes c-ray but no chess.
    what id like to see now is a linux kernel (compiled with these different compilers) performance benchmark.

    a thing that bothers me aswell is the fact that there are being "regressions found" on intel cpu whereas there is a huge performance improvement on AMD (or vice versa). maybe one should take this into account when looking for regressions. as far as i remember there have only been benchmarks with intel hardware...
    and as the graphs show there really are some interesting splits in performance with different hardware

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakubo View Post
    quite nice.
    it seems llvm likes c-ray but no chess.
    what id like to see now is a linux kernel (compiled with these different compilers) performance benchmark.
    Last I heard, can't be done with llvm.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Sorry, that was ambiguous. As in, Linux kernel compiling can't be done with llvm.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,016

    Default

    I may have missed it but what optimizations were used for these tests (especially for gcc)?

    Code:
    -march=native -mtune=native -fomit-frame-pointer -O3
    More, less?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    -mtune=native is redundant if you're using -march=native.
    -fomit-frame-pointer breaks debuggability in x86.
    -O3 has bugs and might slow down run-time in many cases.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Good article, nice graphs and happy bday!

    I'd bet with time that LLVM using compilers will catch up to GCC in the rest of the tests.

  10. #10

    Default

    What compiler flags were used to build each package? These benchmarks are out of context without that information.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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