Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: LLVM Clang 3.4 Is Running Very Well On AMD's High-End APU

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,531

    Default LLVM Clang 3.4 Is Running Very Well On AMD's High-End APU

    Phoronix: LLVM Clang 3.4 Is Running Very Well On AMD's High-End APU

    After earlier this week running GCC 4.8.2 vs. GCC 4.9 development snapshot benchmarks on the AMD A10-7850K Kaveri APU, up for testing today are new compiler tests from this new high-end APU comparing GCC 4.9 in its current development form to LLVM Clang 3.4. This GCC 4.9 vs. LLVM Clang 3.4 compiler performance comparison is more competitive than some of the past compiler comparisons and does hold a few surprises.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19797

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    21

    Default

    First thing:
    I see that you are using -O3. Clang has -O4, which uses -O3 and LTO. Is it possible to use this flag?

    Second thing:
    I would like to see a benchmark with more "distribution like" compiler flags like:

    -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
    (from ArchLinux)

    It would be nice to see, what are the differences for distributions between Clang and GCC. I think most people are using software compiled with O2 and march=x86-64.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -MacNuke- View Post
    First thing:
    I see that you are using -O3. Clang has -O4, which uses -O3 and LTO. Is it possible to use this flag?

    Second thing:
    I would like to see a benchmark with more "distribution like" compiler flags like:

    -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
    (from ArchLinux)

    It would be nice to see, what are the differences for distributions between Clang and GCC. I think most people are using software compiled with O2 and march=x86-64.
    -O4 is the same as -O3 since Clang 3.4. (http://llvm.org/releases/3.4/tools/c...compiler-flags)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -MacNuke- View Post
    First thing:
    I see that you are using -O3. Clang has -O4, which uses -O3 and LTO. Is it possible to use this flag?

    Second thing:
    I would like to see a benchmark with more "distribution like" compiler flags like:

    -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
    (from ArchLinux)

    It would be nice to see, what are the differences for distributions between Clang and GCC. I think most people are using software compiled with O2 and march=x86-64.
    I'm using -march=bdver2 and seeing as this is a bdver3 (steamroller) I would expect the march and tuning flagged specifically for it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    157

    Default

    As far as I know LLVM doesn't have any optimizations based on AMD extensions. So they might be a little handicapped compared to GCC which can use XOP and other AMD extensions. Then again maybe LLVM should hurry up and fix that

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    316

    Default I like that the results are all over the place.

    It provides plenty of room for improvement for both platforms.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    20

    Default

    There is a strong bias towards LLVM Clang...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    39

    Default scimark Jacobi SOR test

    Jakub Jelinek has improved GCC's jacobi scores at 10th of January. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00646.html
    I tried to reproduce the results on bdver1 machine and get 896 from LLVM (today checkout), 693 from gcc-4.8 and 1239 from today checkout of GCC.
    So it seems to me that GCC used was not GCC 4.9.0 20140126 or it is some really architecture specivic bdver3 thing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    241

    Default

    It looks like not even concrete results where Clang performs better than GCC will convince people here that Clang is already in pair with GCC. No, that is just impossible; no body can beat the almighty GCC. It is all a conspiracy...
    They will continue to say that Clang produces "vastly inferior binaries".

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    It looks like not even concrete results where Clang performs better than GCC will convince people here that Clang is already in pair with GCC. No, that is just impossible; no body can beat the almighty GCC. It is all a conspiracy...
    They will continue to say that Clang produces "vastly inferior binaries".
    Read the results again. Maybe you confused the graphs. GCC is the one that is faster in 90% of the tests.

Posting Permissions

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