From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 4 23:40:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0920F106566B for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 23:40:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44028FC12 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 23:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iayy25 with SMTP id y25so245218iay.13 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:40:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=75yr5/MhiRfkRX3fAR6S5/cnSO0xti0JtzKxgyGyH5c=; b=GEWPD5EOr4U6jm2ITaUeIZvkTiX4Y/aeJnMPMLAd03HbUw/K0UK490Zyqo49JyL3yT /EYqJc1z6euFslEEMKPZ2liXe6TZ0U6iM3Aic/sPReCgP/oQShXsYtQFQoeJJlIZRWPE Y6gvPM1Lg66gMjA5Xbck+h8IHtdGwVn1cShYqSZG/lzGiwwZVdcegOhY8hKQuk7dhjIn MAg1pIcgps36qytsQ5f2Sjkk7KuhkVpV0HuNGvkaJ8YaIj5pfHYMLpFa1Gpq61mEiuL1 vLesQS0uznmGfk9kCSdKe0XA2kUBveI3wZ6d18dSU6oMzPvlfQK+pPMrpgkOHVZYISI2 WIcQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.2.134 with SMTP id 6mr16411317oeu.62.1346802055134; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.142.201 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:40:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120904221413.GA19395@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <5046670C.6050500@andric.com> <20120904214344.GA17723@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <504679CB.90204@andric.com> <20120904221413.GA19395@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:40:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: Steve Kargl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Dimitry Andric , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compiler performance tests on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 23:40:56 -0000 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > 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 does have a point. Posting the results of CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc for config.log (and maybe poking through the code to figure out what *FLAGS were used elsewhere) is more valuable than the data is in its current state (unfortunately.. autoconf makes things more complicated). Maybe we need some micro benchmarks for this (no, I'm not volunteering :P). Thanks! -Garrett