llvm dev - Dec 2009 - [LLVMdev] detailed comparison of generated code size for LLVM and other compilers

See here:

   http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/

There is a lot of data there.  Please excuse bugs and other problems. 
Feedback would be appreciated.

John Regehr

On Dec 14, 2009, at 7:33 AM, John Regehr wrote:
> See here:
>
>   http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/
>
> There is a lot of data there.  Please excuse bugs and other problems.
> Feedback would be appreciated.
Hi John,

I agree with the gcc folks: it's really important to get frame pointer  
emission etc aligned across the various compilers.  ICC defaulting to  
frame pointers off and GCC/llvm defaulting to them on will seriously  
warp the numbers.  Also, while I agree that compilers should all  
optimize undefined behavior away as aggressively as possible, I also  
think it's not a very "interesting" test in the grand scheme of  
things. :)

Very interesting work though, I hope to have some time to dive in more  
later,

-Chris

On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:46 AMPST, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 7:33 AM, John Regehr wrote:
>
>> See here:
>>
>>  http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/
>>
>> There is a lot of data there.  Please excuse bugs and other problems.
>> Feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Hi John,
>
> I agree with the gcc folks: it's really important to get frame pointer
> emission etc aligned across the various compilers.  ICC defaulting to
> frame pointers off and GCC/llvm defaulting to them on will seriously
> warp the numbers.
Where did the gcc folks express this opinion?

There are probably other differing defaults besides frame pointers.   
Stack protectors, perhaps.