Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: GCC & LLVM Clang Performance On The Intel Atom

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,529

    Default GCC & LLVM Clang Performance On The Intel Atom

    Phoronix: GCC & LLVM Clang Performance On The Intel Atom

    A few weeks ago there were benchmarks of GCC, LLVM-GCC, DragonEgg, and Clang. In this compiler performance comparison the releases of GCC 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and a 4.6 development snapshot were benchmarked. On the LLVM side there was LLVM-GCC 4.2, DragonEgg with GCC 4.5 and LLVM 2.8, and then Clang with LLVM 2.8. This combination of eight open-source compilers were tested on three distinct Intel and AMD systems (even a 12-thread Core i7 Gulftown), but all of which were 64-bit capable and contained relatively high-end processors from their respective series. To complement this earlier article, available now are some new GCC/LLVM benchmarks but this time an older Intel Atom CPU was used to look at the 32-bit compiler performance on a slower, low-power netbook.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15517

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florianopolis, Brazil
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Clang continues to impress me, I can't wait for it to be capable of compiling a full standard distribution. In fact I have been eagerly eying FreeBSD again after years away from the platform because of their investment in making GCC history.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Keep these benchmarks coming, really looking forward to the ARM tests. Also great that you've opted for the latest point releases in your tests, makes the result much more relevant.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidNielsen View Post
    In fact I have been eagerly eying FreeBSD again after years away from the platform because of their investment in making GCC history.
    Why would you want GCC to be history? I am very happy to have competition (finally) on the open compiler front and the last thing I would want is a lack of competition again. Is this some BSD licence zelot/anti-GPL thing?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Add Intel icc to the mix, so that we have some perspective. I am sure Intel will readily provide you with a copy, unless they are afraid of comparison. :-)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mirza View Post
    Add Intel icc to the mix, so that we have some perspective. I am sure Intel will readily provide you with a copy, unless they are afraid of comparison. :-)
    That would be awesome!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mirza View Post
    Add Intel icc to the mix, so that we have some perspective. I am sure Intel will readily provide you with a copy, unless they are afraid of comparison. :-)
    Although it was quite some time since I did tests using ICC, I remember it failed to compile alot of things. Although it's a closed source compiler it's available for free on Linux (windows users have to pay), or atleast that was the case when I last tried it (many moons ago). It would indeed be interesting seeing the results assuming that the tests would compile fine.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Although it was quite some time since I did tests using ICC, I remember it failed to compile alot of things. Although it's a closed source compiler it's available for free on Linux (windows users have to pay), or atleast that was the case when I last tried it (many moons ago). It would indeed be interesting seeing the results assuming that the tests would compile fine.
    The issue is that a significant amount of open source software that uses GCC extensions to C/C++. If it were following the standard, there would not be a problem.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florianopolis, Brazil
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Why would you want GCC to be history? I am very happy to have competition (finally) on the open compiler front and the last thing I would want is a lack of competition again. Is this some BSD licence zelot/anti-GPL thing?
    Several reasons, firstly it is blindingly obvious that the horse to back is LLVM + Clang not GCC. The sooner we can switch the better for all involved. It is progressing extremely rapidly as a technology and is finding uses in places where GCC cannot.

    Secondly, looking at how the FSF has run GCC e.g. you will see that they directly prohibited things like plugins for reason not of technology but to protect their ideological bend. Thus disallowing, in practice, the use of GCC for things such as static analysis which LLVM offers us today. Static code analysis is just one of many technologies we could and should deploy to ensure secure and performant code. The FSF playing politics with the compiler and their licensing has actively prevented that, in effect putting Open Source software in a worse place than it had to be (so much so that Coverity has made a small fortune running such tests on select codebases for us - using of course proprietary software which I hardly would call a win for ideology overall).

    Thirdly, I prefer a BSD/X11 style license (specifically I am personally rather fond of the MS-PL license but that is besides the point).

    GCC is holding us back, the few areas where it currently leads such as proactive security I expect Clang will catch up shortly - as the tests show performance of the resulting code isn't holding for long. In the mean time your average distro will be moving to ship LLVM for the Gallium drivers, likely also for Mono and Python (if Google's work will ever get mrged) and many other aspects. Making GCC effectively redundant code, and who wants to maintain two separate code paths which both have to be supported.

    I believe the sooner we start moving towards a goal of compiling our distros with Clang and obsoleting GCC, the sooner we will start reaping the benefits that are inherent to such a move. FreeBSD have realized it's potential and have started this move, I believe we are behind technologically and the time to start this work is now.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    The issue is that a significant amount of open source software that uses GCC extensions to C/C++. If it were following the standard, there would not be a problem.
    Yes, but that's no fault of GCC, these extensions are added at the behest of programmers (I'd wager the vast majority has been added due to the requests of the Linux kernel devs). Programmers asked for them, programmers use them.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •