Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 23:59:39 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compiler performance tests on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT Message-ID: <504679CB.90204@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <20120904214344.GA17723@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <5046670C.6050500@andric.com> <20120904214344.GA17723@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD >> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against >> clang 3.1 and clang 3.2. ... > The benchmark is somewhat meaningless if one does not > know the options that were used during the testing. If you meant the compilation options, those were simply the FreeBSD defaults for all tested programs, e.g. "-O2 -pipe", except for boost, which uses "-ftemplate-depth-128 -O3 -finline-functions". I will add some explicit notes about them.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?504679CB.90204>