search for: dec_09

2009/12/14 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: > I'd recommend targeting (with both -march and -mtune) a simple and > commonly available CPU type like "core2" or "pentium4".  ICC should > have both of these and gcc/llvm definitely do. While I would say that, to be fair, the comparison should be made with the same options (-O3 only or something of the

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > 2009/12/14 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: >> I'd recommend targeting (with both -march and -mtune) a simple and >> commonly available CPU type like "core2" or "pentium4".  ICC should >> have both of these and gcc/llvm definitely do. > > While I

...nces due to different default > code generation choices; for example, clang defaults to generating > SSE2 code, while llvm-gcc defaults to using x87 FP. Aha, this explains some apparently bizarre results such as the second one (018427, d) on this page: http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/dec_09/harvest/llvm-gcc-head_clang-head/ I had been wondering about this one. John

[cross-posting to the GCC and LLVM lists] I've updated the code size results here: http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/dec_09/ The changes for this run were: - delete a number of testcases that contained use of uninitialized local variables - turn off frame pointer emission for all compilers - ask all compilers to target x86 + SSE3 - ask all compilers to not emit stack protector code - run unix2dos on the .c files s...