From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 18 20:28:15 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627E71065674
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:28:15 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7E18FC1B
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:28:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5IKS5E3092595;
	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:28:05 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id
	q5IKS5fq092592; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:28:05 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:28:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl>
In-Reply-To: <1340050088483-5719484.post@n5.nabble.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182224430.88997@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206161815550.41364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<op.wf0i64pg34t2sn@me-pc>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206172212440.2506@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<op.wf3upvdc34t2sn@tech304>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181749160.78762@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<op.wf3wd8vf34t2sn@tech304>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181829210.99007@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<CAHhngE0eLR9PEoyn2TLuV7+z7NtsHMgdsj6YbSm3ZQijDxTNjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FDF8054.9030906@fisglobal.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182129440.45874@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<1340050088483-5719484.post@n5.nabble.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
	(wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]);
	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:28:05 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why Clang
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:28:15 -0000

> That's interesting discussion.
>
> I hit some cases where clang produced binaries were
> clearly faster than those made with latest gcc. But it's far
> from rule.

i did few more test on common unix tools, or my programs and results are 
that by average there are just as fast within 1% range.

by average it is just like gcc both im compiling speed and execution 
speed.

> Where you have found statements that clang is always
> faster than gcc?

from that mailing list - mostly from mark fedler. He even showed me some 
nice graphs to "prove" it - graphs showed speed of -O0 compilation.

>
>> From my perspective, it's almost as good OR better
> than gcc, with potential for further improvement and
> nice license, errors etc. Fair enough.
actually good licence is for me the only adventage over gcc.

But yes - it is great adventage.