GCC & LLVM Clang Performance On The Intel Atom

[mirza]

Add Intel icc to the mix, so that we have some perspective. I am sure Intel will readily provide you with a copy, unless they are afraid of comparison. :-)

[XorEaxEax]

In fact I have been eagerly eying FreeBSD again after years away from the platform because of their investment in making GCC history.

Why would you want GCC to be history? I am very happy to have competition (finally) on the open compiler front and the last thing I would want is a lack of competition again. Is this some BSD licence zelot/anti-GPL thing?

[XorEaxEax]

Keep these benchmarks coming, really looking forward to the ARM tests. Also great that you've opted for the latest point releases in your tests, makes the result much more relevant.

[DavidNielsen]

Clang continues to impress me, I can't wait for it to be capable of compiling a full standard distribution. In fact I have been eagerly eying FreeBSD again after years away from the platform because of their investment in making GCC history.

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GCC & LLVM Clang Performance On The Intel Atom

A few weeks ago there were benchmarks of GCC, LLVM-GCC, DragonEgg, and Clang. In this compiler performance comparison the releases of GCC 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and a 4.6 development snapshot were benchmarked. On the LLVM side there was LLVM-GCC 4.2, DragonEgg with GCC 4.5 and LLVM 2.8, and then Clang with LLVM 2.8. This combination of eight open-source compilers were tested on three distinct Intel and AMD systems (even a 12-thread Core i7 Gulftown), but all of which were 64-bit capable and contained relatively high-end processors from their respective series. To complement this earlier article, available now are some new GCC/LLVM benchmarks but this time an older Intel Atom CPU was used to look at the 32-bit compiler performance on a slower, low-power netbook.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15517