From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sun Aug 28 15:16:37 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D580BA6A33 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:16:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04177369; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:16:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from elferdo@gmail.com) Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x131so68627679ite.0; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:16:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VaJQBl3GOyTgzjXEvbKkch96o06lQQr1QcLkp6/uvXY=; b=blV0LlELA2NTivx0v12JvgOQc8cw1dhGavFs0X3EpW70WosmYAHPQRUm8RK9g9YqJB Wmwyy8doZUCpb0EIB0kp4sG5KH8mswuK5X1K6AQRiVfcCRWlP7bHKMRnk256I/3/p01J 0p1T2ANzrAOJZh7x8Vk9eueivpNBLrOH795szX8SAGhKSnWZdq7wlUpHG5NIE7SgDQJW xN0YaQ2Un2Km/XyBqpdiEmZriuD8oJhxZBGpqm2kW0VByorvXIQFGNn62JPMmNiIsee8 KsiEyE3SoGdwPFrKpLxOoxl5gAXe3/m8+JMVrrBr+0PqCUQaJsSxOo8nddP3edWVTqmh PSxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VaJQBl3GOyTgzjXEvbKkch96o06lQQr1QcLkp6/uvXY=; b=NLSrQzlScQ23uuWhBLxyuKxUQ96xa2lwQLVnDlNJifWX/WWJ9LrVB/VWljrUZwjdzt RCSXyvinRwJDn8Cz9xVBUNgxWwzy5wfQwFw6FR8cyobw+jOfyqNmglc9GjhnahODGNmQ 2uwPX1wB5reCbdI7ERdBTvFeXWHEoHP0WCuiwm85q0xhhCMXHP8DxqZRzl4+3y3XoCif 2C24V8B8vyjo0sr3wFHZr6kf21PTVjsjq6WFK8RKO1pX0LXhNMViHYSixpxoSW3cae7T tnRv07JrHOcpTeHWfU2afUwze5yzfa5hixoQmOUjuZ3zo3DlQgC4GfaR6JZhiVwbgGjV fA5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOCu9+3IGwZFpHNq0eZpZHeGXWy8b5zjb6Mkrk1YPJr2n7QWtH2dVAkAx4I8gHvZJBayHg0BcdhNgFYtQ== X-Received: by 10.107.13.129 with SMTP id 123mr15623318ion.47.1472397396233; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:16:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.95.18 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.95.18 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:16:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <79F32FFD-BBDF-4359-A4CB-C80A3FC59EAD@FreeBSD.org> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> <827183a944ee4052649c152d65204444@schema31.it> <20160822101423.GF18643@e-new.0x20.net> <79F32FFD-BBDF-4359-A4CB-C80A3FC59EAD@FreeBSD.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Herrero_Carr=C3=B3n?= Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:16:35 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11 To: Dimitry Andric Cc: "K. Macy" , freebsd-stable , Johannes Dieterich , Lars Engels , Erich Dollansky , Andrea Brancatelli , Kubilay Kocak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:16:37 -0000 El 28/8/2016 14:56, "Dimitry Andric" escribi=C3=B3: > > On 28 Aug 2016, at 02:10, K. Macy wrote: > > > >> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11. > >> Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, witness) > >> options enabled which make it significantly slower than release > >> versions. This is even obviously when you run a Beta as a desktop. It > >> just feels much slower. > > > > > > I don't know what was going on in these particular tests, but in a > > more recent benchmarking run > > - https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dfreebsd11-clang-gcc= &num=3D1 > > - you're seeing the result of openmp being disabled in base. The clang > > maintainer for src refuses to include libomp as required for -fopenmp > > because nothing in base requires it. > > Come on, this is nonsense. I have indicated earlier that I would have > liked to import openmp into base, but this was shot down precisely for > that reason: nothing in base uses it. > > So for now, the solution is simply: install one of the llvm ports, and > use it. These have configuration setting to install every optional > component from the LLVM project. > > -Dimitry > How does the port infrastructure handle openmp-enabled ports (those with an openmp option) then? Is an omp-capable compiler automatically pulled in or is openmp ignored unless the port explicitely requests one from ports? Fernando