similar to: [LLVMdev] FYI: Phoronix GCC vs. LLVM-GCC benchmarks

On Sep 14, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Stefano Delli Ponti wrote: > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php? > page=article&item=apple_llvm_gcc&num=1 Unfortunately, they don't specify what flags are used, what architecture is compiled for etc. It's entirely possible that they are accidentally compiling the llvm-gcc binaries for x86-32 and the gcc ones for x86-64 for example. If

screw that site, its useless info run by a linux gnu zealot. 2009/9/14 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: > On Sep 14, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Stefano Delli Ponti wrote: > >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php? >> page=article&item=apple_llvm_gcc&num=1 > > Unfortunately, they don't specify what flags are used, what > architecture is compiled for etc.

FYI http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1

On 27 April 2010 08:18, Stefano Delli Ponti <stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote: > FYI > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1 For Apache and Dhrystone, the performance boost is good (but only the former is really important), but for the rest, especially those with image/sound processing, and HMMR, it's still far behind. Is this only

Olivier Meurant: > I have run the john the ripper test. > I have used the official archive (same version as phoronix) from > http://www.openwall.com/john/g/john-1.7.3.1.tar.bz2 > > To build with llvm-gcc, replace the line CC = gcc with CC = llvm-gcc. > I have used the following command to build : make clean linux-x86-sse2 > (seems to be the best on x86-32) > The makefile

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:37:53AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: > On 27 April 2010 08:18, Stefano Delli Ponti > <stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote: > > FYI > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1 > > For Apache and Dhrystone, the performance boost is good (but only the > former is really important), but for the rest,

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Stefano Delli Ponti < stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know what you think about this, but shouldn't it be more > meaningful to make these tests with -O3? I mean, we ought to make the > comparisons with the highest level of optimization available for both of > the compilers. It is difficult to compare an intermediate

Chris Lattner: > Comparing -O3 (and even -O4) is interesting, but we want all > optimization levels to perform better than GCC :). Lots of people use > -O2 and -Os, so comparing against other compiler's -O2 and -Os levels > is just as interesting as comparing -O3 vs -O3. > My thinking was that, for instance, -02 for GCC and -02 for LLVM(-GCC) do not necessarily mean

On Sep 16, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Stefano Delli Ponti wrote: > Chris Lattner: >> Comparing -O3 (and even -O4) is interesting, but we want all >> optimization levels to perform better than GCC :). Lots of people >> use -O2 and -Os, so comparing against other compiler's -O2 and -Os >> levels is just as interesting as comparing -O3 vs -O3. > > My thinking

On 27.04.2010, at 12:37, Renato Golin wrote: > On 27 April 2010 08:18, Stefano Delli Ponti > <stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote: >> FYI >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1 > > For Apache and Dhrystone, the performance boost is good (but only the > former is really important), but for the rest, especially those

2009/9/14 Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan at auroraux.org>: > screw that site, its useless info run by a linux gnu zealot. Well, being a Linux GNU zealot doesn't invalidate numbers. What does invalidate is that he has no numbers! He just fired a few applications and counted the seconds, this is utterly pointless. No reference to how many times he ran, standard deviations,

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > 2009/9/14 Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan at auroraux.org>: > > screw that site, its useless info run by a linux gnu zealot. > > Well, being a Linux GNU zealot doesn't invalidate numbers. What does > invalidate is that he has no numbers! > > He just fired a few

On Sep 16, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Stefano Delli Ponti wrote: > Olivier Meurant: >> I have run the john the ripper test. >> I have used the official archive (same version as phoronix) from >> http://www.openwall.com/john/g/john-1.7.3.1.tar.bz2 >> >> To build with llvm-gcc, replace the line CC = gcc with CC = llvm-gcc. >> I have used the following command to build

Since we are in the area, what *should* O1 do? It's basically good for nothing, since it doesn't tune for size or performance. The only good I personally ever have for it is once in a while there is a miscompile at -O1 which narrows the problem. Would it be crazy to make -O1 equivalent to -Os? - Daniel On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>

Hi everyone, I have replayed the "unix benchmark v3.6 dhrystone 2" test. You can find the archive of the test here : http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/benchmark-files/byte-benchmark-1.tar.gz To play the test on gcc : make ./Run dhry2 To play the test on llvm-gcc : Replace in Makefile : CC=gcc by CC=llvm-gcc in Run : CC=gcc by CC=llvm-gcc make ./Run dhry2 Some information on the test

On Sep 16, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Since we are in the area, what *should* O1 do? > > It's basically good for nothing, since it doesn't tune for size or > performance. The only good I personally ever have for it is once in a > while there is a miscompile at -O1 which narrows the problem. > > Would it be crazy to make -O1 equivalent to -Os? I've

>> >> I've always used O1 for a quick cleanup so that my debug code doesn't >> completely suck, but hasn't been optimized into oblivion for gdb. >> Also >> makes looking at the resultant assembly dumps fairly easy. > > If this is from the compiler programmer perspective, we have better > tools for that. If this is from the user perspective,

And this one, with LLVM ~3.0: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_compilers&num=1 -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Whitaker Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:01 Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] The performance of LLVM vs GCC [and copy to

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> I've always used O1 for a quick cleanup so that my debug code doesn't >>> completely suck, but hasn't been optimized into oblivion for gdb.  Also >>> makes looking at the resultant assembly dumps fairly easy. >> >> If this is from the compiler

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> Since we are in the area, what *should* O1 do? >> >> It's basically good for nothing, since it doesn't tune for size or >> performance. The only good I personally ever have for it is once in a >> while there is a