Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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..

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Clang still produces code that runs 1200% slower than GCC. meh

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by willmore View Post
                Ahh, I had forgotten that. So, what you're saying that FreeBSD users build the code, but don't actually run it much? Wonderful.
                This one was epic

                ************************************************** ************************************************** *******************



                Since I'm personally almost against compiling every program you install, for normal/desktop use at least(nothing wrong, except excessive amount of time sent and danger of literally burning laptops), although for other uses it's also arguable if the times, cpu cycles, etc, are justified too, I use and expect that most others use binary packages. Besides, if the compiler is good enough, cpu and system specific optimizations are pretty much negligible and not worth the time spent(it could be more than what you save .. xP). Add the fact that you CAN occasionally get SLOWER code, especially if you haven't figured the optimal flags for your system(---> testing, more time spent). I don't know, some claim they can just compile in the background and limit compiler's cpu usage(would it be enough to not burn my laptop though? :P). I'd say that still in usecases that reboot/logout/suspend/resume is a significant possibility, it's not so convenient.
                So what's my point? When you use binary packages compile time is pretty much insignificant, besides, packages are often compiled in servers and computer clusters sharing a network(if not mistaken) splitting the jobs between many cpu's, resulting in low compile times anyway. I expect many developers to do so as well and I think quite a few do. If they don't have 10+ computers available for compiling they're probably not that good and doing something wrong anyway :P (j/k)
                So for most end users and most users of the compiled product time reduction doesn't matter, especially if it comes with some drawback(code deficiency possibly?) and I don't know if it would justify, let's say, rewriting the linux kernel etc, as some might expect.
                Of course, improvements of Clang are welcome. But in this case we should compare more things, such as efficiency I think. Besides, I could probably get reversed results with the correct use of compiler flags etc(which don't seem to be mentioned or I can't find them ..).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by willmore View Post
                  Ahh, I had forgotten that. So, what you're saying that FreeBSD users build the code, but don't actually run it much? Wonderful.
                  Learn to read, retard. I wrote about desktop applications!
                  I guarantee that you will never ever notice any difference on performance of, say, LibreOffice Writer between binaries compiled with GCC, Clang, ICC, or Open64.
                  The performance differences between binaries from different compilers are only noticeable in number-crunching tasks such as encoding long HD videos and in such cases GCC can still be used to compile. GCC is not gone from FreeBSDís repos, itís just no longer the default compiler.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    /sidenote

                    It may not be about compilers, but Libreoffice Writer is still slow, especially in startup.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Sometimes a benefit in one situation is a disability in another.

                      Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                      Learn to read, retard. I wrote about desktop applications!
                      I guarantee that you will never ever notice any difference on performance of, say, LibreOffice Writer between binaries compiled with GCC, Clang, ICC, or Open64.
                      The performance differences between binaries from different compilers are only noticeable in number-crunching tasks such as encoding long HD videos and in such cases GCC can still be used to compile. GCC is not gone from FreeBSDís repos, itís just no longer the default compiler.
                      Please keep it civil, Awesomeness.

                      I'm not sure what your desktop does, but mine does a lot of video transcoding, audio transcoding, image manipulation, etc. Those tasks benefit greatly from a good compiler. Considering I run these desktop apps on my laptop, power usage is a very large consideration for me. So, I would say your "...only noticeable in number-crunching..." phrase isn't as insignifigant as you make it out to be.

                      Yes, that coin could be flipped and show how Clang is using less power to compile apps. That would be meaningful to me if I ran a self compiled OS, but I got over that phase years ago. Grep the linux kernel documentation if you want to know more about that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by willmore View Post
                        Please keep it civil, Awesomeness.
                        Stop act as if you didn't throw an arrogant and yet wrong comment first.

                        Originally posted by willmore View Post
                        I'm not sure what your desktop does, but mine does a lot of video transcoding, audio transcoding, image manipulation, etc. Those tasks benefit greatly from a good compiler. Considering I run these desktop apps on my laptop, power usage is a very large consideration for me. So, I would say your "...only noticeable in number-crunching..." phrase isn't as insignifigant as you make it out to be.
                        You are really reading-impaired, no?
                        I already wrote that for such tasks GCC can still be used.

                        Originally posted by willmore View Post
                        Yes, that coin could be flipped and show how Clang is using less power to compile apps. That would be meaningful to me if I ran a self compiled OS, but I got over that phase years ago. Grep the linux kernel documentation if you want to know more about that.
                        What does Linux have to do with the current topic? It's about FreeBSD!
                        Again: Learn to read! Seriously!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Why not just use gcc with the "-O0" option? Do you have any idea how fast gcc is with the "-O0" option? How about a comparison of the performance of the resultant binaries? Without this you might as well just praise an engine for being designed to put out 1000 horsepower, but forget the fact that it is made out of plastic and won't last more than one or two revolutions. Don't get me wrong, though. Having a choice in compilers is a good thing. Maybe LLVM/Clang will outdo gcc in the near future. Apple can produce some good open source software. I don't know what I'd do without CUPS.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X