Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "zz_00005bbd".
2009 Jul 18
0
[LLVMdev] speed and code size issues
...ot;maximally
embarrassing" since each function represents some significant failure to
optimize.
The global maximally embarrasing function is one where various versions of
gcc (including llvm-gcc) emit code returning constant 0 and clang emits
762 bytes of x86. The C code is this:
int ZZ_00005bbd(int x,int y){return m1s((x?0:x),a8s(y,y));}
The other embarrassing thing about these functions is that most compilers
miscompile some of the 7 million functions. llvm-gcc and clang are the
only ones we tested that actually get them all right.
To compile these functions this code needs to be pr...
2009 Jul 17
9
[LLVMdev] speed and code size issues
So it would appear that llvm-gcc and clang are both slower than
gcc4 which is infamous for being slow at compiling code, and
yes this is with a release build/--enable-optimizations.
This seems to go against notes such as
http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance
which claim clang is signifcantly faster than gcc.
Below are some times and the larger object files when
compiling an i386
2009 Jul 18
1
[LLVMdev] speed and code size issues
...nce each function represents some significant failure to
> optimize.
>
> The global maximally embarrasing function is one where various versions of
> gcc (including llvm-gcc) emit code returning constant 0 and clang emits
> 762 bytes of x86. The C code is this:
>
> int ZZ_00005bbd(int x,int y){return m1s((x?0:x),a8s(y,y));}
>
> The other embarrassing thing about these functions is that most compilers
> miscompile some of the 7 million functions. llvm-gcc and clang are the
> only ones we tested that actually get them all right.
>
> To compile these func...
2009 Jul 18
2
[LLVMdev] speed and code size issues
...ot; since each function represents some significant failure to
> optimize.
>
> The global maximally embarrasing function is one where various versions of
> gcc (including llvm-gcc) emit code returning constant 0 and clang emits
> 762 bytes of x86. The C code is this:
>
> int ZZ_00005bbd(int x,int y){return m1s((x?0:x),a8s(y,y));}
>
> The other embarrassing thing about these functions is that most compilers
> miscompile some of the 7 million functions. llvm-gcc and clang are the
> only ones we tested that actually get them all right.
>
> To compile these function...