Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM Clang 16 vs. GCC 13 Compiler Performance On Intel Raptor Lake

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

  • LLVM Clang 16 vs. GCC 13 Compiler Performance On Intel Raptor Lake

    Phoronix: LLVM Clang 16 vs. GCC 13 Compiler Performance On Intel Raptor Lake

    For those wondering how the recent releases of the Clang 16 and GCC 13 are competing for the fastest generated binaries of these leading open-source compilers, here is a fresh round of benchmarks from an Intel Core i9 13900K "Raptor Lake" system looking at the performance for a variety of C/C++ workloads built under each of these compilers.

    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
    Wow, Clang has come a long way. Just a couple of years ago Clang was decimated in some of these benchmarks.
    👏👏👏
    Last edited by paulpach; 11 May 2023, 10:25 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by paulpach View Post
      Wow, Clang has come a long way. Just a couple of years ago Clang was decimated in some of these benchmarks.
      👏👏👏
      Yes but the quality of the compiler and libC++ is getting worse. Modern C++ support too. You can clearly see that Apple and Google are not anymore investing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Alright! LLVM/Clang always had a better architecture, better heuristics and license but the argument for GCC was that it generates better code, now it seems that Clang is just better from most points of view.

        Comment


        • #5
          How do these results compare to the current states of both compilers? Because I imagine to recall that about a year ago GCC was slightly faster, but had lost some performance when compared to even earlier versions. Has Clang improved performance or has GCC lost more performance to achieve this result?

          Comment


          • #6
            Appreciate your work as always to keep us current on the state of the art.

            Just curious - how do these results compare to the preceding versions? I'm not interested in going from GCC 12 to 13 or LLVM if there is no performance benefit.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by patrick1946 View Post

              Yes but the quality of the compiler and libC++ is getting worse. Modern C++ support too. You can clearly see that Apple and Google are not anymore investing.
              And you base those statements on... ?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by patrick1946 View Post
                Yes but the quality of the compiler and libC++ is getting worse. Modern C++ support too.
                Could you show proof of that.
                You can clearly see that Apple and Google are not anymore investing.
                No, I don't see that. They still contribute to LLVM with many other organizations Intel, AMD, Nvidia
                I see the opposite many commercial organizations are investing on LLVM because of its license.

                GCC doesn't have equivalent to Clangd which is used by many tools, their static analyzer still doesn't support C++.
                In general GCC has bad support for Tooling. Almost every tool I know uses LLVM/Clang backend.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by anarki2 View Post

                  And you base those statements on... ?
                  On working with all three compilers daily.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Setif View Post
                    Could you show proof of that.

                    No, I don't see that. They still contribute to LLVM with many other organizations Intel, AMD, Nvidia
                    I see the opposite many commercial organizations are investing on LLVM because of its license.

                    GCC doesn't have equivalent to Clangd which is used by many tools, their static analyzer still doesn't support C++.
                    In general GCC has bad support for Tooling. Almost every tool I know uses LLVM/Clang backend.
                    LLVM is not Clang, it's the base for Clang and other compilers like Swift, Rust etc..

                    I worked on Clang tooling, so I could see the engagement of Google. Why do you think Clang was falling behind GCC?



                    Look at modules or coroutines, they are still not finished. Clang was for a time the best compiler but in the last time it shows quality issues. It has little glitches but they are annoying. MSVC actually got much better. GCC stayed steady. But that is only my personal expirience as a C++ developer.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X