llvm dev - Apr 2010 - [LLVMdev] Phoronix: Benchmarking LLVM & Clang Against GCC 4.5

FYI

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1

On 27 April 2010 08:18, Stefano Delli Ponti
<stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI
>
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1
For Apache and Dhrystone, the performance boost is good (but only the
former is really important), but for the rest, especially those with
image/sound processing, and HMMR, it's still far behind. Is this only
because there is no auto vectorization in LLVM?

Would be good to know why some programs were not compiled with Clang.

-- 
cheers,
--renato

http://systemcall.org/

Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm

On 27.04.2010, at 12:37, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 08:18, Stefano Delli Ponti
> <stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI
>>
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1
> 
> For Apache and Dhrystone, the performance boost is good (but only the
> former is really important), but for the rest, especially those with
> image/sound processing, and HMMR, it's still far behind. Is this only
> because there is no auto vectorization in LLVM?
> 
> Would be good to know why some programs were not compiled with Clang.
yup.
it's a bit strange, that they couldn't compile php.

I compile php with clang for several months (at least) and it just works



-- 
Alexey Zakhlestin
http://www.milkfarmsoft.com/




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100427/73c12918/attachment.bin>

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:37:53AM +0100, Renato Golin
wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 08:18, Stefano Delli Ponti
> <stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote:
> > FYI
> >
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1
> 
> For Apache and Dhrystone, the performance boost is good (but only the
> former is really important), but for the rest, especially those with
> image/sound processing, and HMMR, it's still far behind. Is this only
> because there is no auto vectorization in LLVM?
Doesn't llvm-gcc still lack autovectorization support as well? It's
numbers are closer to the stock gcc releases suggesting the problem
isn't from the absence of vectorization, no?
           Jack
> 
> Would be good to know why some programs were not compiled with Clang.
> 
> -- 
> cheers,
> --renato
> 
> http://systemcall.org/
> 
> Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev