Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking LLVM & Clang Against GCC 4.5

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

  • #16
    Industry benchmark line

    Thanks for the article, however, I would welcome some comparison to industry standard compiler e.g. intel compiler or ibm xlc.
    Just a thought...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by dvohwinkel View Post
      Not to bash Michael, benchmarking is hard...

      Wouldn't it make sense to actually compile programs using the new power of the compiler? If he did a standard "make all" he didn't take advantage of any of the new optimizations available in gcc 4.5.0. I would love to see an article where we see what these new features/optmizations can do.
      Likewise none of the whole program optimizations were done on the llvm side. (At least I didn't see anything about compiling at O4 and using the llvm plugin for gold)

      Comment


      • #18
        Compile Times

        Originally posted by mlau View Post
        True, noone really rebuilds large codebases a few times a day, but
        even a slight reduction in build time can be advantageous if you're
        pressed for time.

        LD can take _ages_ to link larger binaries (I've seen it take ~2 hours to link QtWebkit on MIPS and then bail out with a nonsensical "Bad value" error).
        At work, we build automatically our large project when people check in, and we also perform a clean build every time we push a set of changes to be tested by QA (a few times a day). Improving build times does improve our productivity.

        I do agree, however, that what is more important is the performance of the end-product.

        Comment

        Working...
        X