Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zapcc Still Aiming For "Super Fast" Compiler Performance

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

  • Zapcc Still Aiming For "Super Fast" Compiler Performance

    Phoronix: Zapcc Still Aiming For "Super Fast" Compiler Performance

    It's been a while since last covering Zapcc as a new, super-fast C/C++ compiler yet it has evolved and now the latest beta is reporting to show even more impressive performance gains...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...iler-Perf-2016

  • #2
    I believe those numbers... but how fast are the binaries? Compiling fast is cool, but not so much if the binaries end up being as slow...

    Comment


    • #3
      I believe the numbers, but is the compiler any good? LLVM/clang at least tell me where the bugs in the code are. I'd rather tools that help troubleshoot....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DMJC View Post
        I believe the numbers, but is the compiler any good? LLVM/clang at least tell me where the bugs in the code are. I'd rather tools that help troubleshoot....
        This is a modified version of LLVM/Clang as far as I know... I think it uses a more optimal in memory representation to implement in memory caching. Thats its main feature over stock llvm/clang anyway...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by cb88 View Post

          This is a modified version of LLVM/Clang as far as I know... I think it uses a more optimal in memory representation to implement in memory caching. Thats its main feature over stock llvm/clang anyway...
          I totally missed this part of the article. I'll be interesting, then.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andrebrait View Post
            I believe those numbers... but how fast are the binaries? Compiling fast is cool, but not so much if the binaries end up being as slow...
            According to the bottom half of https://www.zapcc.com/benchmarks/ the runtime performace is equivalent to stock clang.

            Comment


            • #7
              What's the point of private beta? Is it closed source or sth?

              Comment


              • #8
                From the description it sounds like it does a similar thing like ccache. the gains seem primary to come from the caching, given how big the fluctuations between runs are.

                it makes sense to implement this within the compiler vs. guessing from the outside ala ccache. selling this as "compiler performance" is bogus though

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by discordian View Post
                  From the description it sounds like it does a similar thing like ccache. the gains seem primary to come from the caching, given how big the fluctuations between runs are.

                  it makes sense to implement this within the compiler vs. guessing from the outside ala ccache. selling this as "compiler performance" is bogus though
                  Why is it bogus to sell it as compiler performance?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

                    Why is it bogus to sell it as compiler performance?
                    You know how ccache works?
                    It looks at compiler parameters and hashes sourcefile, then it looks this ups in a cache, if it finds an entry it doesnt compile the sources, but just copies over the result from a previous run. The compiler doesnt even get executed, hence its not compiling faster, but compiling gets skipped.

                    As far as I understand, Zapcc integrates this behaviour into clang. Which is fine and leads to faster builds.
                    But then I could use ccache with unmodfied clang and get a 3-10 times speedup aswell - without touching clang at all! I hope you agree that using ccache is not making clang more performant.

                    Btw, Zapcc vs ccache & clang would be a fitting test

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X