similar to: [LLVMdev] Phronix does another speed test

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:42:33 -0800 (PST) Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> wrote: > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_gcc_dragonegg28&num=1 > as of version 2.8, LLVM is generating slower code than the newer GCCs > but generates the code more quickly. > I would be more concerned about the 'unable to compile', or 'compiled code not

Hi Edwin, >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_gcc_dragonegg28&num=1 >> as of version 2.8, LLVM is generating slower code than the newer GCCs >> but generates the code more quickly. >> > > I would be more concerned about the 'unable to compile', or 'compiled > code not working correctly' issues. It would help if they

>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_gcc_dragonegg28&num=1 >>> as of version 2.8, LLVM is generating slower code than the newer GCCs >>> but generates the code more quickly. >>> >> >> I would be more concerned about the 'unable to compile', or 'compiled >> code not working correctly' issues. It

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:04:47PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: >> My concern is that, without strict enforcement of the triaging >> serious P1-type bugs, the major llvm.org releases will devolve into a >> continual exchange of one set of major regressions for another set.

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

Hi all, This talk includes the performance comparison between LLVM and GCC (page 30/31): LLVM wins a lot for both compilation and execution time. http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.pdf That talk and data were in 2008, I was wondering if there is any updated performance evaluation between the latest LLVM and GCC? Thanks. -- Jianzhou

[and copy to list] Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi all, > > This talk includes the performance comparison between LLVM and GCC > (page 30/31): LLVM wins a lot for both compilation and execution time. > http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.pdf > That talk and data were in 2008, I was wondering if there is any > updated performance evaluation between the latest LLVM and

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

AMD is dropping support for the R300-R500 cards in their official drivers: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r500_legacy&num=1 As the current open source drivers do not support 3D, I'd like to know which Compiz effects use 3D and which use 2D. Thanks. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il

Hi everyone. I read on a 2011 article - http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nouveau_comp_2011&num=19 - that my particular card, GeForce 8400 GS, overheats with nouveau. (So, I never tried using if for long, before, as soon as possible, installing the proprietary drivers...) But, because it's a 2-year-old article, I was wondering if that problem could have been, in the

Hi Does there exist a list of relative compile times for source files in LLVM? I am doing a build for ARM on an actual ARM device, and CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp is taking a really long time to compile (it's been like 20 minutes or more). I don't even get an error. All the files before it compile pretty quickly but this file in particular just won't finish. The version of gcc I have on

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=apple_llvm_gcc&num=1 Regards, Stefano

On 11/03/11 10:11, Rotem, Nadav wrote: > And this one, with LLVM ~3.0: > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_compilers&num=1 What, no dragonegg?! :) Ciao, Duncan.

Puyan, There is a doc on the document page which describe the list of broken GCCs. You'll need to check it once the docs are online. Rajika On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Puyan Lotfi <puyan at gatech.edu> wrote: > Hi > > Does there exist a list of relative compile times for source files in LLVM? > I am doing a build for ARM on an actual ARM device, and >

Hi, this is about kicking-off regular compile-time tracking for LLVM and CLANG on the green dragon: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/view/Compile%20Time/ <http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/view/Compile%20Time/>. The goal is to stay on top of compile-time issues immediately when they occur so they can be assessed rather than creeping in unnoticed. The methodology is simple: form a CTMark suite

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

Hi, The problem is modern c++. I can have a reasonable system boostrape-ed with (tinycc/alternative C compiler), but only in the gcc world since a modern c++ compiler is only bootsrape-able from near any C compiler there. clang and llvm are unable to do it. That why I would need to get 2 gccs: "any C compiler" -> gcc 4.7.4 -> gcc recent_version -> llvm. On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at

Dear People I have installed wine 1.3.13 with windows 7 mode. I know that bug is old, but now with the new patch of Wow appear again the Bug is the number 24928 I have one Nvidia Gforce 450 GTS 1 GB ram DDR5 with the drive 270.18 The problem is with wine wow -d3d11 appear the bar in fair mode, and the option good and ultra are not accesible. I want to know if that problem is only mine or

On 27/09/2018 16:14, Sami Ketola wrote: >> It was studio cc. gcc doesn't make it through configure and I didn't ask why. > > Can you share a little bit more info on how did the compile (or configure even) fail with gcc on Solaris 11? $ ./configure $ARGS ... checking Linux compatible mremap()... no checking whether shared mmaps get updated by write()s... no checking whether

Hello, I would like to address an issue/inconsistency related to command line options and compiling for minimum code size, and wanted to check if there would be any problems or objections to my change. The problem is that compiling for minimum code size like this: -Oz --target=arm-arm--eabi -mcpu=cortex-xyz does not really give minimum code size because -mthumb is not enabled. This