Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Clang vs. GCC Compilers For AMD's Steamroller

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LLVM Clang vs. GCC Compilers For AMD's Steamroller

    Phoronix: LLVM Clang vs. GCC Compilers For AMD's Steamroller

    Besides the interesting but disappointing AMD Kaveri Gallium3D vs. Catalyst Linux driver benchmarks published this morning, here's some more AMD A10-7850K "Kaveri" benchmarks for your Sunday viewing pleasure...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    What's the point of even doing tests that require OpenMP if you know for a fact that Clang doesn't have it?

    On another note, Clang 3.5 seems to have more than one regression, which sucks after the awesome improvements 3.4 brought.

    Comment


    • #3
      To demonstrate what impact that has perhaps?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
        What's the point of even doing tests that require OpenMP if you know for a fact that Clang doesn't have it?

        On another note, Clang 3.5 seems to have more than one regression, which sucks after the awesome improvements 3.4 brought.
        He must have a soft spot for GCC.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Daktyl198
          What's the point of even doing tests that require OpenMP if you know for a fact that Clang doesn't have it?
          It's important to note the fact when doing a comparison, and that test is part of the compiler suite: http://openbenchmarking.org/suite/pts/compiler

          Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
          He must have a soft spot for GCC.
          Quit trolling.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
            He must have a soft spot for GCC.
            OpenMP is old technology (the 1.0 revision though), and even Visual Studio 2005 had it. It is in LLVM/Clang's power to do it as it can improve performance of some software packages, if not, it is normal to get some flack for this, doesn't it seem fair for you?

            For comparison when Google's Chrome had the fast JS VM, all people praised them and anyone having an interpreter was bashed in media and everyone have now a full JIT. But similarly when IE had hardware acceleration and Google Chrome didn't, everyone was bashing Google Chrome. Is it fair in a competitive world (as the compilers do compete, as being at least 4 major compilers fighting for improvements: VC++, GCC, Clang, Intel, ...) and missing a major feature for multicore (when today no CPU you can buy, including phones, is single core).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
              OpenMP is old technology (the 1.0 revision though), and even Visual Studio 2005 had it. It is in LLVM/Clang's power to do it as it can improve performance of some software packages, if not, it is normal to get some flack for this, doesn't it seem fair for you?

              For comparison when Google's Chrome had the fast JS VM, all people praised them and anyone having an interpreter was bashed in media and everyone have now a full JIT. But similarly when IE had hardware acceleration and Google Chrome didn't, everyone was bashing Google Chrome. Is it fair in a competitive world (as the compilers do compete, as being at least 4 major compilers fighting for improvements: VC++, GCC, Clang, Intel, ...) and missing a major feature for multicore (when today no CPU you can buy, including phones, is single core).
              To be fair, LLVM chose not to implement OpenMP because a new X.0 spec was coming out, so they just decided to start there and move forward. Which they did. Patches got posted months ago under RFC. So its not that they COULDNT do it, they just decided to wait for the new version and start there instead of trying to do 2 versions at the same time
              All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think that it is more like some base LLVM main architecture flaw that prevent to catch GCC in code quality. I remember 4+ years ago articles that state LLVM was so good, and we have LLVM based radeon shader that lag behind Catalyst, OpenMP still not implemented, code quality lag behind GCC with exception of few anecdotal special selected cases, etc.

                About comparison, as usual "not apple/ubuntu biased" atricle, for example GCC -O2 have no relation with clang -O2, everybody know that, as very different passes (from hundreds!) choices, like GCC -O2 more like clang -O3 and you compare compiler speed 30 passes vs 200+ passes. Sure it is intentional to continue to post again and again that compiling speed "benchmark".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by storm_st View Post
                  I think that it is more like some base LLVM main architecture flaw that prevent to catch GCC in code quality. I remember 4+ years ago articles that state LLVM was so good, and we have LLVM based radeon shader that lag behind Catalyst, OpenMP still not implemented, code quality lag behind GCC with exception of few anecdotal special selected cases, etc.

                  About comparison, as usual "not apple/ubuntu biased" atricle, for example GCC -O2 have no relation with clang -O2, everybody know that, as very different passes (from hundreds!) choices, like GCC -O2 more like clang -O3 and you compare compiler speed 30 passes vs 200+ passes. Sure it is intentional to continue to post again and again that compiling speed "benchmark".
                  The results from the tests don't seem so clear cut to me...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by storm_st View Post
                    I think that it is more like some base LLVM main architecture flaw that prevent to catch GCC in code quality. I remember 4+ years ago articles that state LLVM was so good, and we have LLVM based radeon shader that lag behind Catalyst, OpenMP still not implemented, code quality lag behind GCC with exception of few anecdotal special selected cases, etc.

                    About comparison, as usual "not apple/ubuntu biased" atricle, for example GCC -O2 have no relation with clang -O2, everybody know that, as very different passes (from hundreds!) choices, like GCC -O2 more like clang -O3 and you compare compiler speed 30 passes vs 200+ passes. Sure it is intentional to continue to post again and again that compiling speed "benchmark".

                    Heeeeey we got a new troll. its okay little buddy you just go off and believe whatever you want *pats head* Maybe one day you'll even be a real boy
                    All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X