From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 4 22:14:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADE5106566B for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:14:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72718FC16 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q84MEDo9019513; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:14:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q84MEDfs019512; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:14:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:14:13 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Dimitry Andric Message-ID: <20120904221413.GA19395@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <5046670C.6050500@andric.com> <20120904214344.GA17723@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <504679CB.90204@andric.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <504679CB.90204@andric.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:14:19 -0000 On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >>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 benchmark is somewhat meaningless if one does not > >know the options that were used during the testing. > > If you meant the compilation options, those were simply the FreeBSD > defaults for all tested programs, e.g. "-O2 -pipe", except for boost, > which uses "-ftemplate-depth-128 -O3 -finline-functions". I will add > some explicit notes about them. Yes, I meant the options specified on the compiler command line. 'gcc -O0 -pipe' compiles code faster than 'gcc -O3 -save-temps', and the former uses much less memory. -- Steve