Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: FreeBSD 9.1: LLVM/Clang Battling GCC

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    And I still don't understand the value of benchmarks like that. The same with graphics driver tests. Pages and pages of graphs showing performance under poor conditions instead of showing what the drivers (or compilers) are actually capable off.
    Most users would never adjust defaults. "Defaults will prevail". So that's what >90% of users will actually be able to get from system. Hence it's completely fair and good idea to compare default systems without tuning.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    And it's better too see bad graphs immediately rather than install OS, waste a lot of time and then get surprised by shitty performance.
    Classic BSD

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    Quite simple: I'm unwilling to make any discounts and if someone loses in OpenMP here and now by a factor of 3, let's admit this problem and fix it if you can. Just hiding problematic tests is lame. And as for me I'm using OSes today. I don't want to wait for June or whatever to get adequate performance. And it's better too see bad graphs immediately rather than install OS, waste a lot of time and then get surprised by shitty performance.
    I agree that lack of support for something like OpenMP should not be hidden. But what is the point of benchmarking a not supported feature in a comparison? Just a waste of time, one could simply state that OpenMP is not supported instead.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Christ, are you guys bashing clang/BSD serious or am I just dropping into an exchange of in-jokes? I mean, this article is only relevant to you if you a) are running BSD and b) are interested in the performance impact of the clang switch. If you are not, then why are you wasting your and everyone else's time here debating non-issues?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by demonkoryu View Post
    Christ, are you guys bashing clang/BSD serious or am I just dropping into an exchange of in-jokes? I mean, this article is only relevant to you if you a) are running BSD and b) are interested in the performance impact of the clang switch. If you are not, then why are you wasting your and everyone else's time here debating non-issues?
    They're just trolling. I've not idea why they do it.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenSLOWlaris View Post
    thus the GPL is also crap.
    Nobody but you is talking about the GPL here.

    Besides that, after your pathetic and criminal outburst (accusing the OpenBSD people to be the Boston bombers) I am surprised that you are still allowed to post on this forum.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenSLOWlaris View Post
    This benchmarks with a new version of LLVM vs an old outdated version of GCC is often misused by BSD supporters to claim that GCC is crap and thus the GPL is also crap. BSD supporters do not use this article to see that impact of the switch to clang as that would be thought crime to them. Also, anyone concerned with performance (or security or portability for that matter) would never use any BSD crap. So this article will never be used by BSD supports for what you claim. No they use it for trolling.

    The people you accuse of bashing clang/BSD are good willed people trying to stop that from happening. BSD supporters are vile and blatent.



    The real trolls in this thread are brainless BSD supporters like you, BitLight, vermanden, phkbsd, VertexSymphony and Vim_User. If there is one thing that can be improve in the conversation, it be your posts be invisible to others in threads similiar to this one.
    Yes sir, you are back... Keep this thread alive so more people can be aware of the great things happening with FreeBSD. Thanks!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    366

    Default

    The irony here is that, compared to what we have in the Windows world, no one bothers with GCC. Slightly slower then MSVC, and a hack of a lot harder to, you know, CODE with.

    http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...itectures.html



    As a developer, if I had to code for a non-Windows platform, I'd use LLVM/CLANG in a heartbeat over GCC, especially once it gains OpenMP support later this year.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    As a developer, if I had to code for a non-Windows platform, I'd use LLVM/CLANG in a heartbeat over GCC, especially once it gains OpenMP support later this year.
    See, thatís why I do not like the focus the OpenMP tests put on OpenMP: They create a hype on OpenMP which establishes the feeling that LLVM would be so much better than GCC if it just implemented OpenMP - which is simply a feature which will come at some point.

    Thatís like establishing a binary decision point when people should switch instead of showing the different aspects of choosing a compiler.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CthuIhux View Post
    keep dreaming, more poeple use GCC then MSVC because it's free, portable and doesn't require the slow and bloated .NET to install. Your facts are twisted.

    GCC is slower because it does more work it producing binaries that are smaller and more efficient then the horrible bloated messes produced by MSVC and CLANG. It makes more more sense: Compile once and run many times. Something the BSD homos don't get.

    GCC outputs a lot more details that Clang and MSVC try to hide making it easiler to figure out the problem much more quickly.
    Keep the thread alive... Thanks!

Posting Permissions

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