Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:24:10 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th Message-ID: <20120911132410.GA87126@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org> References: <20120910211207.GC64920@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20120911104518.GF37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120911120649.GA52235@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: > > > tl;dr: Clang will become the default compiler for x86 architectures on 2012-11-04 > > > Another issue with the switch, which seems to be not only not addressed, > > but even not talked about, is the performance impact of the change. I > > do not remember any measurements, whatever silly they could be, of the > > performance change by the compiler switch. We often have serious and > > argumented push-back for kernel changes that give as low as 2-3% of > > the speed hit. What are the numbers for clang change, any numbers ? > > Agreed. We should provide numbers. At least how buildworld times change > with clang compiled kernel/workd and gcc compiler kernel/world. How fast clang builds world in comparison to gcc is irrelevant. What is important is whether software built with clang functions correctly. See for example, http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/errata.html#WhatComp Has anyone run Spec CPU2006 on i386 and amd64 FreeBSD? -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120911132410.GA87126>