From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 1 06:00:37 2012 Return-Path: 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 7E59D10656D6 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:00:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from radiomlodychbandytow@o2.pl) Received: from moh2-ve2.go2.pl (moh2-ve2.go2.pl [193.17.41.200]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3774A8FC12 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:00:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from moh2-ve2.go2.pl (unknown [10.0.0.200]) by moh2-ve2.go2.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B897B03811 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:51:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from unknown (unknown [10.0.0.74]) by moh2-ve2.go2.pl (Postfix) with SMTP for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:51:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from unknown [93.175.69.74] by poczta.o2.pl with ESMTP id Ypnhvx; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:51:36 +0200 Message-ID: <50692F65.50103@o2.pl> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:51:33 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW8gbcWCb2R5Y2ggYmFuZHl0w7N3?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20120905073430.D14B910657D3@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20120905073430.D14B910657D3@hub.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O2-Trust: 1, 39 X-O2-SPF: neutral X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:48:14 +0000 Subject: Re: freebsd-current Digest, Vol 464, Issue 3 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: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 06:00:37 -0000 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