Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:36:00 +1000 From: andrew clarke <mail@ozzmosis.com> To: "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net> Cc: FreeBSD Questions !!!! <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GCC question Message-ID: <20150622163600.GD92373@ozzmosis.com> In-Reply-To: <55883162.8050501@hiwaay.net> References: <558585CB.4070607@hiwaay.net> <20150622154545.GA92373@ozzmosis.com> <55883162.8050501@hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon 2015-06-22 11:07:53 UTC-0453, William A. Mahaffey III (wam@hiwaay.net) wrote: > I found some sources online last summer when I built this box that said > clang produced worse code than gcc, that's most of the reason I went w/ > 9.3R rather than 10.n, which are clang based, as I understand things. I > guess I am good to go now, then, thanks :-) .... I think you'll find 10.x is no slower than 9.x. Otherwise nobody would use 10.x. Whatever you read probably applied to a much older version of clang. "Last summer" is ambiguous btw. Earth has two hemispheres. Where I live it's winter. Incidentally your email program's time zone is very odd. UTC-0453?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150622163600.GD92373>