Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    513

    Default

    I wish, there was and latest intel C++ compiler benchmark alongside these.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    The last sentence of the The John the Ripper test analysis:

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoronix
    DragonEgg and Clang both lagged behind in performance miserably compared to GCC.
    I think you meant LLVM-GCC and Clang. Because DragonEgg is basically competitive with the older versions of GCC, only falling marginally behind on the Opteron.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgui View Post
    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.
    Possibly, but nether compiler is standing still in development so only the future will tell.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    -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.
    -O3 has been stable to compile with for ages, I can't recall having encountered any program that compiles with -O2 which has problems with -O3 in years. Also I haven't encountered any cases where -O3 is slower than -O2 in ages, so obviously these tests should be done with -O3, especially since that's where most of the new optimizations will end up.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    I wish, there was and latest intel C++ compiler benchmark alongside these.
    Yes that would be really interesting, sadly from my past experience it has alot compability problems.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    -O3 has been stable to compile with for ages, I can't recall having encountered any program that compiles with -O2 which has problems with -O3 in years. Also I haven't encountered any cases where -O3 is slower than -O2 in ages, so obviously these tests should be done with -O3, especially since that's where most of the new optimizations will end up.
    These benchmarks disagree:

    http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7574/2/

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    While these tests are great (kudos Phoronix!) it's unfortunate that they don't test some of the more advanced optimizations that has come during the later releases. While testing PGO (profile-guided optimization) would be a bit unfair since Clang/LLVM doesn't have this optimization, LTO (link time optimizations) exist in both compilers and would be an initeresting comparison. But I can understand that for practical reasons these more advanced optimizations have to be omitted. And since most people stick to -O3 I guess it's overall a fair comparison. Optimizations like PGO are mainly used by projects like Firefox, x264, emulators etc where the added performance really makes a difference.

    Speaking of x264, in order to really compare the differences between the compilers on this package you really should compile it without the hand-optimized assembly (which I'm assuming you haven't since the results are so similar between all versions of gcc).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    I wish, there was and latest intel C++ compiler benchmark alongside these.
    I agree with that, also some other proprietary compilers might be compared (IBM, HP, CodeWarrior).

    Also what about some ARM compiler benchmarks?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    These benchmarks disagree:

    http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7574/2/
    You are confused, these are 'time to compile', not performance benchmarks. Obviously it will take longer time 'to compile' with more optimizations than with fewer. But the resulting binary should be atleast as fast or most likely faster.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    You have the performance benchmarks in the next page of that article.

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
  •