In order to see how llvm-gcc-4.2 svn performs in code generation
compared to the upcoming gcc 4.4, I ran the Polyhedron 2005
benchmarks on a MacPro with the -ffast-math -funroll-loops -msse3 -O3
optimization flags for both compilers. The results are summarized
below.
Ave Run (secs) Ave Run (secs) llvm-gcc-4.2/
Benchmark llvm-gcc-4.2 svn gcc trunk gcc trunk
ac 15.01 12.65 1.187
aermod 15.96 25.52 0.625
air 8.25 7.10 1.162
capaccita 51.41 49.56 1.037
channel 3.32 1.81 1.834
doduc 34.06 35.28 0.965
fatigue 12.80 10.13 1.264
gas_dyn 16.45 7.63 2.156
induct 26.70 14.88 1.794
linpk 15.40 15.50 0.994
mdbx 14.19 12.36 1.148
nf 29.01 25.50 1.138
protein 45.03 39.12 1.151
rnflow 39.67 30.68 1.293
test_fpu 14.03 10.50 1.336
tfft 2.19 2.08 1.053
On Jan 22, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:> In order to see how llvm-gcc-4.2 svn performs in code generation > compared to the upcoming gcc 4.4, I ran the Polyhedron 2005 > benchmarks on a MacPro with the -ffast-math -funroll-loops -msse3 -O3 > optimization flags for both compilers. The results are summarized > below.Hi Jack, Out of curiousity, how does llvm-gcc 4.2 compare against gcc 4.2? I know that a lot of improvement went into the fortran frontend and runtime library between 4.2 -> 4.4, and it would be nice to isolate effects of just the optimizer/backend. -Chris> > > Ave Run (secs) Ave Run (secs) llvm-gcc-4.2/ > Benchmark llvm-gcc-4.2 svn gcc trunk gcc trunk > ac 15.01 12.65 1.187 > aermod 15.96 25.52 0.625 > air 8.25 7.10 1.162 > capaccita 51.41 49.56 1.037 > channel 3.32 1.81 1.834 > doduc 34.06 35.28 0.965 > fatigue 12.80 10.13 1.264 > gas_dyn 16.45 7.63 2.156 > induct 26.70 14.88 1.794 > linpk 15.40 15.50 0.994 > mdbx 14.19 12.36 1.148 > nf 29.01 25.50 1.138 > protein 45.03 39.12 1.151 > rnflow 39.67 30.68 1.293 > test_fpu 14.03 10.50 1.336 > tfft 2.19 2.08 1.053 > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev