Changes So Far For LLVM 3.5

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Changes So Far For LLVM 3.5

LLVM 3.4 was released in January and since then LLVM 3.5 has been under heavy development and will be released this summer...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY4MzY

[bpetty]

Not too exciting

I wonder what is holding up their OpenMP integration.

I could care less about their Sparc support. I'd rather see better x86 optimizations baked in... and better non-Mac OS support. I ran into a number of issues using the compiler on Ubuntu that I never ran into on my Mac (I believe it was around the c++ runtime). Anyway, I am looking forward to some performance comparisons... and also what kind of affect this could have on FreeBSD (or I guess it is known as PC-BSD here at phoronix).

[Marc Driftmeyer]

I wonder what is holding up their OpenMP integration.

I could care less about their Sparc support. I'd rather see better x86 optimizations baked in... and better non-Mac OS support. I ran into a number of issues using the compiler on Ubuntu that I never ran into on my Mac (I believe it was around the c++ runtime). Anyway, I am looking forward to some performance comparisons... and also what kind of affect this could have on FreeBSD (or I guess it is known as PC-BSD here at phoronix).

As Intel. They're working it into trunk before they then move OpenMP 4.0 directly into Trunk.

Last April commit:

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-commits/2014-April/thread.html

[wizard69]

I wonder what is holding up their OpenMP integration.

I could care less about their Sparc support. I'd rather see better x86 optimizations baked in... and better non-Mac OS support.

Isn't that Sparc support non Mac OS?

I ran into a number of issues using the compiler on Ubuntu that I never ran into on my Mac (I believe it was around the c++ runtime).

Submit bug reports! Do realize though that this is a works in progress. In my opinion the Linux world took awhile to wake up to the positives associated with LLVM/CLang.

Anyway, I am looking forward to some performance comparisons... and also what kind of affect this could have on FreeBSD (or I guess it is known as PC-BSD here at phoronix).

Last I knew FreeBSD and PC-BSD where two separate projects.

As far as performance goes it is probably a was. Software quality should be a lot better though because of the enhanced error report, and the static analyzer. One of the motivations for going to LLVM, beyond its more open nature, is that it is simply more helpful to the developers using the compiler. It is helpful by being much faster compiling and issuing those diagnostic/error messages.

[archibald]

Last I knew FreeBSD and PC-BSD where two separate projects.

They are two projects, but PC-BSD is FreeBSD with some extra goop to make it easy to use as a desktop, a lot of the developers of PC-BSD are also FreeBSD developers, and the company that develops PC-BSD also sponsors work being done to FreeBSD (for instance; the Intel KMS code).