Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 9.1: LLVM/Clang Battling GCC

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    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.
    I don't quite get your logic. Why would dropping the OpenMP benchmarks (of course with explicitly stating in the article that they are dropped because Clang lacks support for it) making a difference in you making a decision? Do you really need to see a fancy graphic to realize that?
    And how is a comparison of two compilers on the same platform intended to make the platform more popular?
    This doesn't make much sense.

    Comment


    • #12
      All I see is brand new clang being beaten by an out dated version of gcc.

      In the areas where clang beats gcc, all margins are narrow. In the areas where gcc beats clang, the margins are very wide.

      This benchmark is hardly a fair contest which heavily favors clang and yet gcc still beat the shit of of clang which goes to show how slow development of clang is compared to gcc.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
        Would be more interesting to see GCC 4.7 compared with Clang 3.2.
        It will be something like this http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...c_open64&num=5

        Where clang beaten the shit out of and raped by gcc. Oh YEAH!!!!

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
          All I see is brand new clang being beaten by an out dated version of gcc.

          In the areas where clang beats gcc, all margins are narrow. In the areas where gcc beats clang, the margins are very wide.

          This benchmark is hardly a fair contest which heavily favors clang and yet gcc still beat the shit of of clang which goes to show how slow development of clang is compared to gcc.
          Not even remotely correct. The only time GCC won in these tests are where OpenMP is involved. Clang/LLVM does not support OpenMP in the latest stable, I think support is set to arrive in either the next release or the one after it--both coming later this year. Until OpenMP support lands in a stable release of Clang/LLVM testing it vs GCC is honestly fairly useless because there are some programs that have 2 paths OpenMP (fast) or No OpenMP (slow) or there are ones that have OpenMP (Fastest), No OpenMP but still multithreaded through standard libs (Faster), or no multithreaded at all (Slow). GCC is getting one path, LLVM/CLang is getting another and its pointless.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
            It will be something like this http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...c_open64&num=5

            Where clang beaten the shit out of and raped by gcc. Oh YEAH!!!!
            More something like this: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...32_final&num=1

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
              Would be more interesting to see GCC 4.7 compared with Clang 3.2.
              There's one with GCC 4.8 vs Clang 3.2: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...2_egging&num=5

              In this benchmark, it's literary:

              Clang: Oh! Ow! Ow! Oh GCC please stop raping me! Ow! Oh! Ow! Ow!

              GCC: Er! Er! Er! Er! Er! Thats right bitch!!!! Er! Er!

              Last edited by systemd rulez; 02-07-2013, 11:01 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by 0xbadcode View Post
                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.
                bsd = epic anal fail

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                  I don't quite get your logic. Why would dropping the OpenMP benchmarks (of course with explicitly stating in the article that they are dropped because Clang lacks support for it) making a difference in you making a decision? Do you really need to see a fancy graphic to realize that?
                  And how is a comparison of two compilers on the same platform intended to make the platform more popular?
                  This doesn't make much sense.
                  What BADCODE is saying is that these benchmarks can be attempted to be used by BSD zealots to advocate that gcc is a failure and clang is better since gcc narrowly beat clang in this test which is a joke as it's puting an outdated version of GCC against A New version of Clang.

                  Thus hiding the fact that GCC is still far ahead of Clang. This is simply BSD propaganda it's just ridiculous as we all know BSD is every respect crap, outdated, slow and useless.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                    GCC is getting one path, LLVM/CLang is getting another and its pointless.
                    GCC is moving on one path, thats correct.

                    But LoLVM/Crap is clearly going no where.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                      GCC also anals CLANG in that one. In fact the internet (except for BSD, Apple and Microsoft forums and sites) are full of benchmarks in which GCC anals CLANG deep.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X