Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: GCC vs. LLVM/Clang Compilers On ARMv7 Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,393

    Default GCC vs. LLVM/Clang Compilers On ARMv7 Linux

    Phoronix: GCC vs. LLVM/Clang Compilers On ARMv7 Linux

    While comparing compiler performance of different Linux code compilers on different software stacks and hardware configurations is nothing new at all to Phoronix, usually it's done on x86 hardware. However, with ARM hardware becoming increasingly common and much more powerful, here's a comparison of the GCC and LLVM/Clang compilers on a dual-core ARM development board...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5OTM

  2. #2

    Default Testsuite is bogus as usual

    The test results are completely bogus. Most of tests are compiled w/o any optimizations at all. What's the point of comparing the unoptimized binaries?

    The only "good" test is N-Queens, which is compiled with -O3. Everything else is compiled effectively with -O0.
    C-Ray is bogus as well, because clang does not support -march=native and thus yields slow armv4 code in this case.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,721

    Default

    C-Ray is bogus as well, because clang does not support -march=native and thus yields slow armv4 code in this case.
    That's a deficiency in clang then, I don't know about Michael but I wouldn't want to hard-code a marketing name-to-mcpu switch for-every-compiler table.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    That's a deficiency in clang then, I don't know about Michael but I wouldn't want to hard-code a marketing name-to-mcpu switch for-every-compiler table.
    Yes, surely. But much bigger problem is comparison of unoptimized binaries in the benchmark

Posting Permissions

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