Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:26:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200618290.46371@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191952250.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <854D02B1-CA89-4F5E-8773-DB05F2868D74@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority. i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc. clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization (that trades space) at all, and at -O2 is far slower. produced: -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 11168 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 17024 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O3 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 17024 20 cze 06:18 test.cc.O9 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 11096 20 cze 06:18 test.clang.O2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 tmp tmp 11096 20 cze 06:18 test.clang.O3 cc.O2: real 0m2.877s user 0m2.829s sys 0m0.030s cc.O3: real 0m2.142s user 0m2.131s sys 0m0.000s cc.09: real 0m2.071s user 0m2.054s sys 0m0.008s clang.O2: real 0m3.440s user 0m3.405s sys 0m0.018s clang.O3: real 0m3.217s user 0m3.205s sys 0m0.001s How about leaving politics and getting back to technical grounds? >From what i know now GPLv3 isn't really a problem for us, your may freely distribute binary only software compiled by latest gcc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206200618290.46371>