Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49

Thread: CompilerDeathMatch: surprising results

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    972

    Default

    nice work, staalmanen. Once you got your cflags tweaked for each compiler based on the input the other postes have provided you that produces the best optimizations then why not then do a final benchmark run?

    Also the unoptimized benchmarks (doing the compiles without any optimizations of special flags other than the architecture) are useful as a baseline.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    297

    Default

    WOW, i never knew there are so any compilers for linux!
    I actually only knew gcc, icc and clang!

    But what strikes me more is the fact that for every task GCC does there seems to be a compiler out there that can do it faster and that can make a faster binary! In your benchmarks gcc never wins anywhere!

    However in that impressive chart i see one thing that just shocks me. APACHE static webpage serving! It seems, from your chart, that no mather how high you tune gcc, TCC and Open64 will nearly double the performance!

    Something odd is going on in your C-Ray benchmark.. every other benchmark has wildly varying scores, but C-Ray is nearly the same on every compiler.. That can't be right. (or is it..?)

    And if i look at it the right way it seems that using Open64 -o2 is beating ALL gcc benchmarks at -o2 and with some big differences as well! Now i wonder, why isn't everything compiled in Open64 since it obviously seems superior to GCC..

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markg85 View Post
    WOW, i never knew there are so any compilers for linux!
    I actually only knew gcc, icc and clang!

    But what strikes me more is the fact that for every task GCC does there seems to be a compiler out there that can do it faster and that can make a faster binary! In your benchmarks gcc never wins anywhere!

    However in that impressive chart i see one thing that just shocks me. APACHE static webpage serving! It seems, from your chart, that no mather how high you tune gcc, TCC and Open64 will nearly double the performance!

    Something odd is going on in your C-Ray benchmark.. every other benchmark has wildly varying scores, but C-Ray is nearly the same on every compiler.. That can't be right. (or is it..?)

    And if i look at it the right way it seems that using Open64 -o2 is beating ALL gcc benchmarks at -o2 and with some big differences as well! Now i wonder, why isn't everything compiled in Open64 since it obviously seems superior to GCC..

    As I said in my first post in this thread: "surprising results"

    Back then I ran the "out of the box" performance of the different compilers (similar to the recent Phoronix benchmark) and got completely surprised about the absolutely superior behavior of TCC being both FAST and producing very fast binaries.
    I try to run these things as unbiased as possible, but a part of me is somewhat pleased to see that there is serious competition to GCC out there since I think that diversity is a good thing.
    It would be very interesting to hear whether there are Gentoo (or other source-based distribution) users out there that are running complete Clang-compiled systems (via the LLL tool chain or similar) or perhaps even Open64-compiled systems.
    I have tried to google whether anyone has succeeded compiling linux with Open64 but did not find any evidence of that though...

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    As I said in my first post in this thread: "surprising results"

    Back then I ran the "out of the box" performance of the different compilers (similar to the recent Phoronix benchmark) and got completely surprised about the absolutely superior behavior of TCC being both FAST and producing very fast binaries.
    I try to run these things as unbiased as possible, but a part of me is somewhat pleased to see that there is serious competition to GCC out there since I think that diversity is a good thing.
    It would be very interesting to hear whether there are Gentoo (or other source-based distribution) users out there that are running complete Clang-compiled systems (via the LLL tool chain or similar) or perhaps even Open64-compiled systems.
    I have tried to google whether anyone has succeeded compiling linux with Open64 but did not find any evidence of that though...
    Compiling the linux kernel "seems" to be possible with Open64 ... http://forums.amd.com/forum/messagev...hreadid=138368 (big LOL that i find that on the AMD forum the place i certainly didn't expect it)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    52

    Default

    There's two odd things in this benchmarks..
    1- PCC don't complete 'timed apache compilation' but it appears in the 'static web page serving'.
    2- Clang seems to compile faster when optimization is turned on.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tessio View Post
    There's two odd things in this benchmarks..
    1- PCC don't complete 'timed apache compilation' but it appears in the 'static web page serving'.
    2- Clang seems to compile faster when optimization is turned on.

    That is indeed strange. I do not really know how these tests are designed. I just started off with running the "compiler" suite and got data that later led to more data and so on...
    Perhaps the compilation time test is stricter on getting a "success" returned in order to approve the result, whereas the functional test of the resulting binary is more lenient when it comes to what the compilation returns?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    219

    Default Cross post: Updated with -Os flags

    A new merge with the -Os results are hereby presented:

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...-231-8340-1312

    Enjoy!

    Next up: Aggressive and compiler-specific settings (are there any tweaks that can be made to TCC?).

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    A new merge with the -Os results are hereby presented:

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...-231-8340-1312

    Enjoy!

    Next up: Aggressive and compiler-specific settings (are there any tweaks that can be made to TCC?).
    erm, wrong link....

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    297

    Default

    nevermind, i found it. Here is the link: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...-231-8340-1312

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    219

    Default SolarisStudio

    I just downloaded SolarisStudio as well. Do people find it interesting that I also include this one in the set-up? This will delay the final closure of this experiment (and delay the start of 32-bit tests) further unfortunately, but would give it a wider scope.

    Next up are compiler-specific flags none the less, and I will also try to rename the identifiers on all my experiments prior to the merge so that they get a nicer formatting (which definietly is needed now since there are so many data points).

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
  •