I wish, there was and latest intel C++ compiler benchmark alongside these.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Compiler Benchmarks Of GCC, LLVM-GCC, DragonEgg, Clang
Collapse
X
-
The last sentence of the The John the Ripper test analysis:
Originally posted by PhoronixDragonEgg and Clang both lagged behind in performance miserably compared to GCC.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by nanonyme View Post-mtune=native is redundant if you're using -march=native.
-fomit-frame-pointer breaks debuggability in x86.
-O3 has bugs and might slow down run-time in many cases.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post-O3 has been stable to compile with for ages, I can't recall having encountered any program that compiles with -O2 which has problems with -O3 in years. Also I haven't encountered any cases where -O3 is slower than -O2 in ages, so obviously these tests should be done with -O3, especially since that's where most of the new optimizations will end up.
Comment
-
While these tests are great (kudos Phoronix!) it's unfortunate that they don't test some of the more advanced optimizations that has come during the later releases. While testing PGO (profile-guided optimization) would be a bit unfair since Clang/LLVM doesn't have this optimization, LTO (link time optimizations) exist in both compilers and would be an initeresting comparison. But I can understand that for practical reasons these more advanced optimizations have to be omitted. And since most people stick to -O3 I guess it's overall a fair comparison. Optimizations like PGO are mainly used by projects like Firefox, x264, emulators etc where the added performance really makes a difference.
Speaking of x264, in order to really compare the differences between the compilers on this package you really should compile it without the hand-optimized assembly (which I'm assuming you haven't since the results are so similar between all versions of gcc).
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by yotambien View Post
Comment
Comment