Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:53:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Cc: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191952250.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> lilas% clang -v > Apple clang version 2.1 (tags/Apple/clang-163.7.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn) > Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0 > lilas% clang -O4 test.c -lf2c > lilas% time ./a.out > ... > > real 0m2.359s > user 0m2.341s > sys 0m0.003s > > lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v > ? > gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC) > > lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -O3 test.c -lf2c > lilas% time ./a.out > ? > > real 0m1.241s > user 0m1.234s > sys 0m0.003s So gcc actually improved. Can you compare the execution speed of latest gcc vs. latest clang. thank you i compared FReeBSD 9 supplied gcc with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191952250.8234>