From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep  4 21:50:57 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840A7106583F
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  4 Sep 2012 21:50:57 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com
	[209.85.210.182])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342B18FC08
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  4 Sep 2012 21:50:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iayy25 with SMTP id y25so67444iay.13
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=Rwv0uF+g1ipa5D/ajoZ6LEo6ehabx2kVpNIrt2DPHCs=;
	b=G51Fd9/4cxMWnPn8JfY9tBYWTu3E4JzyByarY63I4PIW1nkQN17NH8HWSa6/GlD5f9
	iz2ZUqJ0zXrQZ0+4VsuPMmcXhBmkbTsexIytLAqTp6pBNq6YZYEuDEsLom4uXSysoGyo
	P7QFZe9xeXrEfb9+uETe7Ut8gAbhRnOUh2cwLhXbBd0AiMTL18fMp8ZuqtAnmYjnZ2V1
	+MvsZR6qeIZ2ErJ2KP7qfgqdIet68nryQQKyVn6ezmJX42CPBx+Z8J8bgk/KLHYAAox5
	XfCzNNG9mumF9t/FhNdKF2L9Z0YwU2zqLSnLtRRSZGYdVQqVUT7BjQrWX5GMYpFPddV7
	zv3A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.2.134 with SMTP id 6mr16359633oeu.62.1346795456637; Tue, 04
	Sep 2012 14:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.142.201 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5046670C.6050500@andric.com>
References: <5046670C.6050500@andric.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:50:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGH67wRziM1qujfPGGxsm9X9ZaHqDXVphLcJOgp_LMBODcaPRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
To: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Compiler performance tests on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:50:57 -0000

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
> clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
>
> The attached text file[1] contains more information about the tests,
> some semi-cooked performance data, and my conclusions.  Any errors and
> omissions are also my fault, so if you notice them, please let me know.
>
> The executive summary: clang compiles mostly faster than gcc (sometimes
> much faster), and uses significantly less memory.
>
> Finally, please note these tests were purely about compilation speed,
> not about the performance of the resulting executables.  This still
> needs to be tested.

    It would be interesting to see how clang++ performs vs g++ when
dealing with nested classes and with complicated code when trying to
optimize things because the optimizer in g++ apparently has some
scaling issues.
Thanks!
-Garrett