Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "8d8c0341".
2018 May 31
0
-O1 with clang and gcc
What are you trying to achieve? If faster runs is the goal, why not
compile with -O2?
Michael
2018-05-31 16:27 GMT-05:00 M. Chaturvedi via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> Hi,
>
> The binary gotten via clang's `-O1` runs much slower (3x) than that gotten
> via GCC's `-O1`.
>
> Reproducible with:
>
>
2018 May 31
1
-O1 with clang and gcc
...; > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180531/8d8c0341/attachment.html>
2018 May 31
2
-O1 with clang and gcc
Hi,
The binary gotten via clang's `-O1` runs much slower (3x) than that gotten
via GCC's `-O1`.
Reproducible with:
https://github.com/m-chaturvedi/test_valgrind_slowdown
We are seeing this difference between gcc and clang at other places as well.
The `-O0` and `-O2` times are comparable, however. Are there some compile
time flags one could add to make the `-O1` times comparable?