Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Clang'ed FreeBSD: Builds Quicker, Uses Way Less RAM

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Oh wow. Sorry to say this but it's crap!

    It is completely useless to measure compiling times or memory usage for clang while compiling. That's about the same as measuring the cpu usage while compiling and complaining when it's at a solid 100%..

    The thing that matters here is if the compiled binary is bigger/smaller compared to gcc and even if that is smaller (which would be better) then it's still a big question if the compiled binary is faster and more memory efficient then the gcc one. I would bet that a GCC compiled binary beats a LLVM one in every possible way though LLVM is progressing rather fast and nicely so that might change sometime. For now GCC is the best one out there on those two.

    My 2 cents..

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    i love freebsd and their shenanigans. i sucks as a desktop OS but they are a thorn in the side of gnu-zealots.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    i love freebsd and their shenanigans. i sucks as a desktop OS but they are a thorn in the side of gnu-zealots.
    natch, as FreeBSD is intended as a SERVER OS not a desktop OS

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Under FreeBSD installing software from the ports tree means compiling it (guess where Gentoo got the portage idea from). Compiler performance is more important there. Binary performance seldom makes a real life difference.
    Exactly, this is a big plus for FreeBSD users. As for the performance gap it's way overblown in most cases. I have compared two FreeBSD 9 system, one with ports compiled with mostly gcc46 the other with clang. The result: I found no noticeable difference in performance in all the applications I use except for the most CPU intensive tasks I run which is ... compiling!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markg85 View Post
    It is completely useless to measure compiling times or memory usage for clang while compiling.
    Try compiling libreoffice - anything that can speed up that beast is a bonus in my book!


    Quote Originally Posted by DeepDayze View Post
    natch, as FreeBSD is intended as a SERVER OS not a desktop OS
    This isn't quite true. That's certainly where is gets most of its use though. With the new intel drivers and intel KMS support they're making an effort to become more appealing as a desktop OS. They've got very recent drivers and libraries in their testing branch, and I would expect to see them merged to mainline in the next couple of months (hopefully in time for 9.2).
    Last edited by archibald; 09-06-2012 at 04:46 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Increased compiling speed is 'nice to have' but it's not that important.

    I too run gentoo and desktop and servers. And while compiling takes a lot of time sometimes, it doesn't matter. Say Clang is 25% faster, which its not, compiling libreoffice now takes about 30-45 minutes on my phenom x6. I'm not sitting there twiddling my thumbs waiting for it to finish. So if it's done 10 minutes faster, while nice, I probably never notice it.

    As for ram usage during compilation, while I'm for memory efficiency in running programms etc, very strongly in favor. But during compilation, who cares. Really, who cares.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    I was compiling libreoffice (and the rest of the programs I had installed) on a celeron (a low spec one supported by 3GB of RAM), so on that laptop a 10% speedup would have saved me about an hour. With that said, I'm recompiling things left right and centre to try to help test the new Xorg packages - basically if I want to install something I need to compile it. People who aren't tracking the development branch don't need to do this though, so for them it's unlikely to be an issue.

    I suppose one of their concerns could be how much development time is spent waiting for things to compile; from that point of view, anything that allows developers to spend more time working and less time waiting is probably a good thing for them.

  8. #18

    Thumbs down crApple propaganda

    What a stupid propaganda. Clang disadvantages advertised as advantages. It uses less ram and compiles faster, because it produces much less optimized code. Moronix..

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    i love freebsd and their shenanigans. i sucks as a desktop OS but they are a thorn in the side of gnu-zealots.
    Funny, because nobody cares and it's Linux and GNU the first class citizens. Better think about bsd zealots.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Under FreeBSD installing software from the ports tree means compiling it (guess where Gentoo got the portage idea from). Compiler performance is more important there. Binary performance seldom makes a real life difference.
    Ahh, I had forgotten that. So, what you're saying that FreeBSD users build the code, but don't actually run it much? Wonderful.

Posting Permissions

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