Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: FreeBSD 9.1: LLVM/Clang Battling GCC

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,625

    Default FreeBSD 9.1: LLVM/Clang Battling GCC

    Phoronix: FreeBSD 9.1: LLVM/Clang Battling GCC

    With LLVM/Clang having become the default FreeBSD x86 compiler as of last year and the recent FreeBSD 9.1 release shipping not only LLVM/Clang but also the libc++ library, new benchmarks were carried out of FreeBSD 9.1 looking at its two stock compilers.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18447

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: FreeBSD 9.1: LLVM/Clang Battling GCC

    With LLVM/Clang having become the default FreeBSD x86 compiler as of last year and the recent FreeBSD 9.1 release shipping not only LLVM/Clang but also the libc++ library, new benchmarks were carried out of FreeBSD 9.1 looking at its two stock compilers.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18447
    Would be more interesting to see GCC 4.7 compared with Clang 3.2.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    284

    Default

    C'mon Michael, you know that this test is _far_ from fair!

    How about you test GCC 3.2 vs the latest LLVM/Clang. I bet the latter one will win everywhere... But will it be fair? No.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    The benchmarks are meant to compare the old FreeBSD system compiler to the new one, not to allow the current versions of both compilers to duke it out - that's a totally different article.

    I'm sure GCC 4.7 vs Clang 3.2 will be coming soon :-) (if it hasn't already been done)

  5. #5

    Default

    Guys, the tests you are talking about have already been done (in fact, several times).... The most recent GCC 4.7/4.8 vs. LLVM Clang 3.1/3.2 - http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18321

    This article is just about the stock FreeBSD compiler performance...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    I thought they'd been done, I was just feeling too lazy to find the URL...

    Thanks for the article Michael, I've just set up a new FreeBSD box and was wondering about exactly this.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Guys, the tests you are talking about have already been done (in fact, several times).... The most recent GCC 4.7/4.8 vs. LLVM Clang 3.1/3.2 - http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18321

    This article is just about the stock FreeBSD compiler performance...
    There's a little difference: they've been done on Linux.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    312

    Default Oh, lol: GCC 4.2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    There's a little difference: they've been done on Linux.
    Oh, why they have to compete with grandfather of GCC aka gcc 4.2? It would make more sense to battle gcc 4.7 . Next time it's better to use GCC 2.95 or so. It would be easier to beat, 4.2 still kicks the butt in half of tests, which is not something *bsd/clang guys would like, he-he-he .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    441

    Default

    How about you drop tests requiring OpenMP for comparison until OpenMP is mainlined into LLVM/Clang 3.3? Retest in June.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    How about you drop tests requiring OpenMP for comparison until OpenMP is mainlined into LLVM/Clang 3.3? Retest in June.
    And why someone should make such discounts? We need operating systems here and now. Not "in June" or whenever. Let's go further and drop all tests where clang loses. Or even better, drop all tests where Linux + recent GCC beats BSDs to a hell. Then BSD guys would be happy for sure . Yet, I doubt this approach would make BSDs anyhow popular.

Posting Permissions

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