Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Clang'ed FreeBSD: Builds Quicker, Uses Way Less RAM

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,437

    Default Clang'ed FreeBSD: Builds Quicker, Uses Way Less RAM

    Phoronix: Clang'ed FreeBSD: Builds Quicker, Uses Way Less RAM

    A FreeBSD developer has carried out a series of performance tests to explore the impact that LLVM/Clang as the default FreeBSD compiler has on FreeBSD 10 in its current form. The Clang compiler performance was compared to GCC 4.2.1 and GCC 4.7.1. Clang mostly comes out ahead of GCC on FreeBSD...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE3NjI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    391

    Default

    What a surprise

    "Clang'ed FreeBSD: Builds Quicker, Uses Way Less RAM": So FreeBSD uses less RAM, when compiled with Clang.
    Last edited by LightBit; 09-05-2012 at 03:40 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Ok it builds faster and uses less RAM, what about the compiled binary?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonzest View Post
    Ok it builds faster and uses less RAM, what about the compiled binary?
    Why should that matter at all? (/sarcasm)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,189

    Default

    this article is pure troll candy [from the gcc vs clang POV the article is fine]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Another article mentioning GCC, Clang and FreeBSD?


  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default Options?

    Well leaving aside the question of whether compilation speed is really a more important goal than the quality of the produced executable (size, performance, correctness), not knowing the optimisation switches used makes the data less useful. Perhaps I missed it in the mailing list post?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    35

    Default

    do you get money every time you say in a clang related article that it is Apple sponsored?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    56

    Default For a distro is this a wise decision?

    I appreciate that clang may be more CPU and memory efficient than gcc when compiling some C++ programs. That's great.

    But, for a distro, the issue of the speed of the resultant binaries as well as well (in some part) the size of those binaries.

    This is similar to the arguements over which compression program to use on distrubtions package files. If 10x more CPU in compression or 10x (or even in combination with) more memory usage during the compression stage is worth it if it produces a slightly smaller package as long as there are no large negatives in the decompression stage.

    Compile/compress once run/decompress *many times*. It's pretty clear which side deserves more effort.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark_ View Post
    do you get money every time you say in a clang related article that it is Apple sponsored?
    I guess he gets as much money from Apple as he gets from Canonical when he writes that Unity is by them and from Red Hat when he mentions that GNOME Shell is mostly by them.

    Quote Originally Posted by willmore View Post
    I appreciate that clang may be more CPU and memory efficient than gcc when compiling some C++ programs. That's great.

    But, for a distro, the issue of the speed of the resultant binaries as well as well (in some part) the size of those binaries.
    Under FreeBSD installing software from the ports tree means compiling it (guess where Gentoo got the portage idea from). Compiler performance is more important there. Binary performance seldom makes a real life difference.

Posting Permissions

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