Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:46:36 +0300 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr>, Fred Morcos <fred.morcos@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program Message-ID: <4FE19BFC.7030304@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201054480.23394@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191952250.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200618290.46371@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BtpaK2ONz2wD7Zb4Hi9W6kk7RR8_VZR8YJTj9jAEj_b4_sDaQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200716330.71176@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BtpaK0XUEBpT7SiwsY=%2BwEPgOd=TAh=Eh7fwim1Odq1jUqZag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200854450.71564@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BtpaK0S=tsYfUhuL6BsUPu7u%2BtB47gMGGTp6Abevh0_1CaayA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201024140.40030@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAH3a3KWy9Qzf5BOUGWM3TLZe5XV3gKz0WhWQJ1q8j9F3FV7hYg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201054480.23394@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> 5. clang/llvm is more modular than gcc, although there are plans for >> gcc to become as modular, it will take time. > > Doesn't matter how it is written, but how it performs. That's a hard one. I remember an error in gcc loop optimizer which makes gcc produce SSE2 opcodes for pre-SSE2 athlon chips. Due to gcc internal design such errors are often seen and almost never patched as you should have eternal knowledge of gcc code. gcc's bugtraq is just a cemetery. Opposing to this ones most fixes to clang touch minimal source lines and minimal set of files. > Same should be used for clang. AS LONG as it is not better it should not > be imported into base system or worse - used as default. And why you think it's not better then gcc? With gcc I can result in code that will hang locking some parts of system forever, yet with clang the code will break predictably yielding a core and a point on where the debugging should start. That was long ago and I can't correctly remember the PR's are I noted this but that was long ago and helped me to debug ZFS issues a lot. The code that runs faster is not the best one. The code that is predictable and runs as fast as possible is. -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE19BFC.7030304>