Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

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

    A FreeBSD developer has carried out a series of performance tests to explore the impact that LLVM/Clang as the default FreeBSD compiler has on FreeBSD 10 in its current form. The Clang compiler performance was compared to GCC 4.2.1 and GCC 4.7.1. Clang mostly comes out ahead of GCC on FreeBSD...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE3NjI

  • #2
    What a surprise

    "Clang'ed FreeBSD: Builds Quicker, Uses Way Less RAM": So FreeBSD uses less RAM, when compiled with Clang.
    Last edited by LightBit; 09-05-2012, 02:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ok it builds faster and uses less RAM, what about the compiled binary?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Lemonzest View Post
        Ok it builds faster and uses less RAM, what about the compiled binary?
        Why should that matter at all? (/sarcasm)

        Comment


        • #5
          this article is pure troll candy [from the gcc vs clang POV the article is fine]

          Comment


          • #6
            Another article mentioning GCC, Clang and FreeBSD?

            Comment


            • #7
              Options?

              Well leaving aside the question of whether compilation speed is really a more important goal than the quality of the produced executable (size, performance, correctness), not knowing the optimisation switches used makes the data less useful. Perhaps I missed it in the mailing list post?

              Comment


              • #8
                do you get money every time you say in a clang related article that it is Apple sponsored?

                Comment


                • #9
                  For a distro is this a wise decision?

                  I appreciate that clang may be more CPU and memory efficient than gcc when compiling some C++ programs. That's great.

                  But, for a distro, the issue of the speed of the resultant binaries as well as well (in some part) the size of those binaries.

                  This is similar to the arguements over which compression program to use on distrubtions package files. If 10x more CPU in compression or 10x (or even in combination with) more memory usage during the compression stage is worth it if it produces a slightly smaller package as long as there are no large negatives in the decompression stage.

                  Compile/compress once run/decompress *many times*. It's pretty clear which side deserves more effort.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mark_ View Post
                    do you get money every time you say in a clang related article that it is Apple sponsored?
                    I guess he gets as much money from Apple as he gets from Canonical when he writes that Unity is by them and from Red Hat when he mentions that GNOME Shell is mostly by them.

                    Originally posted by willmore View Post
                    I appreciate that clang may be more CPU and memory efficient than gcc when compiling some C++ programs. That's great.

                    But, for a distro, the issue of the speed of the resultant binaries as well as well (in some part) the size of those binaries.
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        i love freebsd and their shenanigans. i sucks as a desktop OS but they are a thorn in the side of gnu-zealots.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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!


                              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, 03:46 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X