Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC 4.8.0 vs. LLVM Clang 3.3 Compiler Performance

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

  • #11
    The openmp comparisons do have some merit. For example graphicsmagick here, it is less than 2x on the 8-core bulldozer: bad quality parallelization there.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      The openmp comparisons do have some merit. For example graphicsmagick here, it is less than 2x on the 8-core bulldozer: bad quality parallelization there.
      Nope, this means that clang compiled single thread perfomance equals 2-4 gcc threads.

      Comment


      • #13
        That is another possible conclusion, yes.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by leonmaxx View Post
          I'm very surprised about FX perfomance in some tests.

          Clang: seems like next release will finally beat GCC, and be a good replacement for it (except OpenMP).
          Except that it only was faster in two tests (in one of them only on one single CPU out of 3) and slower in everything else… (I don’t count compile times as tests).

          But you summarized nicely how misleading the text of this article is - again

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by leonmaxx View Post
            Nope, this means that clang compiled single thread perfomance equals 2-4 gcc threads.
            Nope: You cannot distinguish between a weakly parallelizable algorithm and compiler performance. To get good data, you would also have to provide a GCC run without openmp: That would show the speedup due to OpenMP.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by ArneBab View Post
              Except that it only was faster in two tests (in one of them only on one single CPU out of 3) and slower in everything else… (I don’t count compile times as tests).

              But you summarized nicely how misleading the text of this article is - again
              Under "next release" i mean Clang 3.4 or later... Sorry for my bad English.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by curaga
                That is another possible conclusion, yes.
                Or this:

                Originally posted by ArneBab View Post
                weakly parallelizable algorithm
                Thanks.

                Comment


                • #18
                  compiler optimization

                  (Sorry I didn't read too closely if it already does this, and didn't look in the source to check). Anyway one thought is "is this using gcc -march=native"? and another might be to use gcc's profile guided optimization for it. And/or clang's equivalent if it exists.
                  Cheers.
                  -roger-

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X