Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "l8_indvar__phi_temporari".
Did you mean:
l8_indvar__phi_temporary
2004 May 09
0
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C
> > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code,
> > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without
> > syntactic loops).
>
> Yup, this is EXACTLY what is
2004 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote:
> I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM.
> I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from
> CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's
> sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using
> the C backend to generate native
2004 May 04
2
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM.
I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from
CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's
sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using
the C backend to generate native code for PPC.
Most of the LLVM results were close to gcc
2004 May 04
6
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C
> compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code,
> and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without
> syntactic loops).
Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on.
I took this very simple C function:
int Array[1000];
void test(int