Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:51:33 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW8gbcWCb2R5Y2ggYmFuZHl0w7N3?= <radiomlodychbandytow@o2.pl> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd-current Digest, Vol 464, Issue 3 Message-ID: <50692F65.50103@o2.pl> In-Reply-To: <20120905073430.D14B910657D3@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20120905073430.D14B910657D3@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-09-05 09:34, freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org 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. Hey, you've got a cool idea, but the implementation ain't good...you can't compare optimising compilers w/out comparing optimisation quality. If you don't go all-out in one dimension, both are necessary. You conclude that Clang is faster. But maybe if you lowered optimisation level on gcc, it would become faster and stronger than Clang at the same time? We don't know, it hasn't been tested. Regards, -- Twoje radio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50692F65.50103>