Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "head_clang".
2009 Dec 14
2
[LLVMdev] detailed comparison of generated code size for LLVM and other compilers
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
2009 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] detailed comparison of generated code size for LLVM and other compilers
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
2009 Dec 15
2
[LLVMdev] detailed comparison of generated code size for LLVM and other compilers
...fault
> 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