Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:56:07 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Compiler performance tests on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT Message-ID: <50472FC7.8010500@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <96BD00DE-865C-4690-A2F1-E5B7C5D221C0@FreeBSD.org> References: <5046670C.6050500@andric.com> <20120904214344.GA17723@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <504679CB.90204@andric.com> <20120904221413.GA19395@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAGH67wTQavfh9ExsjypnCjw4yrV2RpdUUjxAD2kaZy-PiDocHA@mail.gmail.com> <50471BEE.6030708@andric.com> <96BD00DE-865C-4690-A2F1-E5B7C5D221C0@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-09-05 11:36, David Chisnall wrote: > On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> TThe >> -fno-strict-aliasing is not really my choice, but it was introduced >> in the past by Nathan Whitehorn, who apparently saw problems without >> it. It will hopefully disappear in the future. > Clang currently defaults to no strict aliasing on FreeBSD. Yes, but upstream has never used -fno-strict-aliasing, just plain -O2. I run regular separate builds of pristine upstream clang on FreeBSD, and I haven't seen any failures due aliasing problems in all the regression tests. That doesn't guarantee there are no problems, of course... > In my experience, most C programmers misunderstand the aliasing rules of C and even people on the C++ standards committee often get them wrong for C++, so trading a 1-10% performance increase for a significant chance of generating non-working code seems like a poor gain. If people are certain that they do understand the rules, then they can add -fstrict-aliasing to their own CFLAGS. I'm actually quite interested in the performance difference; I think I will run a few tests. :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50472FC7.8010500>