GCC 5 Is Compiling Faster, But Still Falls Short Of Clang

[brad0]

It's funny how many idiots are out there.

In this single thread there are two very vocal idiots, luckily, both are now on my ignore list.

Both have never compiled a single line of code, yet they rush to contradict with the people whose lives are the code.

And thank you, hosch, for bringing some sanity into this otherwise insane discussion.

Yes, this site is very sad and seems to attract a lot of deranged trolls and idiots.

[asdfblah]

If you really need a shorter compile time, why don't you buy (or rent) a faster CPU? Hell, even if your CPU is not the same as your target architecture, you could try cross-compiling it, and it still would take less time...

And there you have it.

When your wacko ideology is the driving force in the software you use or create you end up garbage software like GCC.

Everyone should be thankful that we have this renaissance in Open Source compiler technology thanks to the Open and Free BSD license. And sober warning of the massive harm the cancerous and viral GPL brings to the software world.

>When your wacko ideology is the driving force in the software you use
Says the BSD guy.

>garbage software
>GCC
lol, OK.

You are no more than a sad troll.

[BeardedGNUFreak]

PS: I'm using mainly GCC because of the licencse, GPL. Which secures freedom, what LLVM is not doing with the it' licence, BSD. But anyway, I've
installed both and using sometimes LLVM.

And there you have it.

When your wacko ideology is the driving force in the software you use or create you end up garbage software like GCC.

Everyone should be thankful that we have this renaissance in Open Source compiler technology thanks to the Open and Free BSD license. And sober warning of the massive harm the cancerous and viral GPL brings to the software world.

[birdie]

It's funny how many idiots are out there.

In this single thread there are two very vocal idiots, luckily, both are now on my ignore list.

Both have never compiled a single line of code, yet they rush to contradict with the people whose lives are the code.

And thank you, hosch, for bringing some sanity into this otherwise insane discussion.

[hosch]

Phoronix is the only well known website which focus on gaming and benchmarks, but quality journalism is something different.
I just feels like fanboyism...

1. Run time of compiled binaries matter, for every user, always
2. A reduced compile time is nice for actual the developer (in some cases me)
3. It is nearly impossible to simply compare "bare results" of compile times, because of different kinds of optimization and debugging

Just read here for a good average picture:

http://draketo.de/light/english/free-software/phoronix-distort-results-gcc-llvm-clang-amd-vishera

GCC could improve a lot, e.g. user interface for auto-completion. But the actual performance is really not the problem. Binary objects created
by GCC are as fast as LLVM, or sometimes even faster. In fact, both projects can learn a lot from each other, especially because Microsoft, Intel
and IBM are only moving slowly.



PS: I'm using mainly GCC because of the licencse, GPL. Which secures freedom, what LLVM is not doing with the it' licence, BSD. But anyway, I've
installed both and using sometimes LLVM.

[brosis]

Almost any time that I can sit down to work on my hobby project, I first have to spend 45 minutes pulling updates and recompiling. If I can cut that to 25, I will and have

This is a vague use case, as reduction in compile times are mostly due to lacking/bad optimization. Compile fast, run slow.
When both produce binaries that are comparably fast, I never saw GCC loosing to CLANG/LLVM in compilation time of that binaries.

[pal666]

No, no, no. Spend enough time developing on large projects and you will welcome any compiler speed improvements you can get.

don't enable optimizations during development ffs

If the compiled code can be roughly the same performance, then why wouldn't you want a faster compiler with better error reporting and better integration with your dev environment.

stop using macos then. linuxes have modern gcc versions, which have better error reporting and better intergation with their dev environment

[pal666]

clang can produce slow programs fast.
that's not news.
btw, gcc with -O0 is even faster

[Veerappan]

Also it only makes sense to test for compiled app speed, not for compiler speed.

No, no, no. Spend enough time developing on large projects and you will welcome any compiler speed improvements you can get.

If the compiled code can be roughly the same performance, then why wouldn't you want a faster compiler with better error reporting and better integration with your dev environment. Add in how easy it is to hack on llvm (e.g. adding in new language support), and the only thing that I use GCC for anymore is the apps that won't build on clang in Linux because they've been written assuming GCC-specific features.

Almost any time that I can sit down to work on my hobby project, I first have to spend 45 minutes pulling updates and recompiling. If I can cut that to 25, I will and have

[mike4]

This is for people that think around corners it seems.

The license is NOT compiler dependant, of course.

Also it only makes sense to test for compiled app speed, not for compiler speed.