Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 77

Thread: A Linux Compiler Deathmatch

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,627

    Default A Linux Compiler Deathmatch

    Phoronix: A Linux Compiler Deathmatch

    Started by one of our readers more than a week ago was a compiler deathmatch for comparing the performance of GCC, LLVM Clang, PCC (the Portable C Compiler), TCC (Tiny C Compiler), and Intel's C Compiler under Arch Linux. This user did not stop there with compiling these different x86_64 code compilers, but he also went on to look at the compiler performance with different compiler flags, among other options. The results are definitely worth looking at and here are some more.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15657

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Is anyone benchmarking the quality of the output in terms of execution and code quality and stability ?

    More of a curiosity.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    178

    Default

    It would be interesting to see how the Intel compiler alternative compares these Free ones.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    If you want to test the speed of the resulting binaries, PLEASE test also what the compiler is able to do and not only what it does in default configuration. Please include maximum optimization in the benchmarks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    575

    Default

    The Arch Linux benchmarks were a lot more interesting

    If this was a deathmatch, who won?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    If it's not a too big problem, could you please run a set of FORTRAN compiler tests, too? Please include ifort and gfortran for sure!

    The -O2 -march=native options seem to be the most interesting...

    Thank you!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Please add a comparison on ARM too. And consider benchmarking at different optimization levels (eg. -Os, -O2 and -O3 for gcc)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Michael, unless you tell the compiler to optimise, it won't optimise. These results are completely useless. It's like testing how fast different graphics cards render with the Mesa software rasteriser.

    The interesting results would be to see what effect different optimisation levels (-O2, -O3, -Os, plus compiler-specific features) have on the final executable. This will help individual developers and distro packagers to pick the best compiler options for specific programs. This would need about 5-6 different configurations per compiler and most of us don't have the time to do it at home, so we would be very grateful if you do a proper benchmark.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Completely useless test.
    You can't compare compilers with their default settings as they have different optimizations by default.

    So what should have been done is to compare the different optimization settings of the compilers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    "All compilers were tested in their "out of the box" configuration without specifying any extra flags."

    This is just brain damaged. What a waste of time and resources. Seriously, this is from the same guy who *wrote* the Phoronix benchmarking suite?

    I honestly can't believe this. Seriously. Could Michael please explain what's the point in this?

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
  •