Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:14:13 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compiler performance tests on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT Message-ID: <20120904221413.GA19395@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <504679CB.90204@andric.com> References: <5046670C.6050500@andric.com> <20120904214344.GA17723@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <504679CB.90204@andric.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > 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. Yes, I meant the options specified on the compiler command line. 'gcc -O0 -pipe' compiles code faster than 'gcc -O3 -save-temps', and the former uses much less memory. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120904221413.GA19395>