Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:16:21 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ClangBSD build failures Message-ID: <4BD6AB65.1010503@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <20100427080518.GA31918@freebsd.org> References: <4BD68275.6020509@bsdforen.de> <20100427080518.GA31918@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27/04/2010 10:05, Roman Divacky wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:21:41AM +0200, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> An interesting result is that buildkernel with clang takes longer: >> CC=clang >> time -l make buildkernel >> 921.31 real 802.25 user 114.93 sys >> time -l make buildkernel -j3 >> 645.17 real 838.46 user 143.03 sys >> >> CC=cc >> time -l make buildkernel >> 877.14 real 757.42 user 115.11 sys >> time -l make buildkernel -j3 >> 628.32 real 798.03 user 149.52 sys > > fwiw.. these are my times: > > > clang: > 403.342u 42.516s 6:53.30 107.8% 21957+2248k 33+56671io 364pf+0w > > gcc: > 451.952u 42.860s 7:23.16 111.6% 6564+2012k 78+43200io 3pf+0w > > > note that clang build had more page faults thus would be a little faster > without them Nice compile times, and thank you for destroying my illusions that my Core2Duo notebook performs quite decently. :( The difference is alarmingly huge. I wonder whether the memory disk actually hurts performance. I will have to test this. I normally use ccache, and am used to a lot faster buildkernels and buildworlds, but I turned this off for the performance tests. So this didn't alarm me until I saw your measurements. Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BD6AB65.1010503>