Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:28:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182224430.88997@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <1340050088483-5719484.post@n5.nabble.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206161815550.41364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf0i64pg34t2sn@me-pc> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206172212440.2506@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3upvdc34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181749160.78762@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3wd8vf34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181829210.99007@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAHhngE0eLR9PEoyn2TLuV7%2Bz7NtsHMgdsj6YbSm3ZQijDxTNjw@mail.gmail.com> <4FDF8054.9030906@fisglobal.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182129440.45874@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <1340050088483-5719484.post@n5.nabble.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That's interesting discussion. > > I hit some cases where clang produced binaries were > clearly faster than those made with latest gcc. But it's far > from rule. i did few more test on common unix tools, or my programs and results are that by average there are just as fast within 1% range. by average it is just like gcc both im compiling speed and execution speed. > Where you have found statements that clang is always > faster than gcc? from that mailing list - mostly from mark fedler. He even showed me some nice graphs to "prove" it - graphs showed speed of -O0 compilation. > >> From my perspective, it's almost as good OR better > than gcc, with potential for further improvement and > nice license, errors etc. Fair enough. actually good licence is for me the only adventage over gcc. But yes - it is great adventage.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182224430.88997>