Originally posted by Daktyl198
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Clang's Competition For GCC On Intel Haswell
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Daktyl198 View PostDoes that mean that the GCC devs tuned the performance for certain benchmarks to get better results than what would normally come out of the compiler...?
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmalzler View PostAnd now please proof that it really is GCC that got slower, and not llvm/clang that got faster. Beacause IMHO it is the second one that happened.
GCC 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 benchmarks for Haswell dual core shows GCC getting faster or being approximately stable across releases.
Comment
-
llvm/clang auto-vectorizes by default, right? I thought gcc did too on relevant targets at -O3, via "-ftree-vectorize", but according to "gcc -O3 -march=native -Q --help=optimizers" it doesn't!
Tested with amdfam10 (AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor) and i7-3840QM, gcc-4.9 git checkout from a few weeks ago.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TemplarGR View PostImpressive... If Clang had openmp support it would be faster overall...
Support for OpenMP 3.1 in Clang is in the process of being promoted into the Clang mainline, and can be found at OpenMP/Clang.
Comment
-
Originally posted by s_j_newbury View Postllvm/clang auto-vectorizes by default, right? I thought gcc did too on relevant targets at -O3, via "-ftree-vectorize", but according to "gcc -O3 -march=native -Q --help=optimizers" it doesn't!
Tested with amdfam10 (AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor) and i7-3840QM, gcc-4.9 git checkout from a few weeks ago.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pawlerson View PostSo, FUD goes on from Phoronix. It's at least second time when Phoronix makes unfair benchmarks in favor to clang.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pawlerson View PostSo, FUD goes on from Phoronix. It's at least second time when Phoronix makes unfair benchmarks in favor to clang.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
Comment
Comment