Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:54:03 +0100 From: Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Herrero_Carr=C3=B3n?= <elferdo@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for FreeBSD 11 Message-ID: <CAOhm=5rjvSxWYRHdGWQRXqZd%2BCnEsNcHys9ax=xfFbFjKKH%2BsQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAMwkeZw_NX7A-Z0hyrTB3w02pu3dHUVVxe0wqVo0dRNzMxMQTg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <af0fefab-69d7-f0a9-3d6d-4a9891d5a156@FreeBSD.org> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> <827183a944ee4052649c152d65204444@schema31.it> <20160822101423.GF18643@e-new.0x20.net> <CAHM0Q_My2otDtVSzTiQMHE=ty%2B7kEBP%2BwfFofBvOzoz8ro%2B-sQ@mail.gmail.com> <79F32FFD-BBDF-4359-A4CB-C80A3FC59EAD@FreeBSD.org> <20160828183242.759bb6c2@freedom.alkumuna.eu> <CAHM0Q_MCGvfn5np7KdYq_h3cyv6w%2BVzjOMyOJzK7LYpPP6UaAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHM0Q_OqYTQUX69%2BQpYxiNDws_w9XY9B%2B3Pe3PxAN6rT5-AYpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMwkeZyJgzdzDqP3Pi4-CH8pM7e_afoM-cJyp3t5oBXJGFyzZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHM0Q_ML64DveUG%2B037BTZHtBuSjR-DH5Wy%2BqbLS8%2B3YHOri4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMwkeZw_NX7A-Z0hyrTB3w02pu3dHUVVxe0wqVo0dRNzMxMQTg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 August 2016 at 09:30, Fernando Herrero Carr=C3=B3n <elferdo@gmail.com= > wrote: > 2016-08-29 3:04 GMT+02:00 K. Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org>: > >> > I'm writing from my cellphone away from my computer, so take this with= a >> > grain of salt: >> > >> > -L/usr/local/llvm38/lib >> >> You're missing the point. If your webserver crashes every other day, >> the fact that you can run a batch job to restart it doesn't make it >> OK. >> >> > Fair enough, I misunderstood the point as "clang, even from ports, cannot > do omp at all [from a shell]". > > >> [...] Requiring additional tweaking to build on FreeBSD >> or requiring users to install gcc is kind of underwhelming. >> > > Isn't that precisely what the ports infrastructure is supposed to do? Wha= t > about compiler.mk? If it can provide an extra library-dirs argument to th= e > port's configure then we're not that bad. And still I agree, this is far > from an ideal situation, and we speaking about finding a library, we have > still not touched having clang use the LLVM linker... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" I have not looked at the article yet. but yes if one compiles FreeBSD ports using a default make.conf (empty file) then the ports will not be built optimised. I dont go all out on optimisation like some people do but I consider basic optimisation to be a modern version of gcc combined with the cpu native flag. Which will auto detect the processor used and add the right flags correctly. I dont fiddle with -O2 -O3 etc. However there is a flipside to this on performance, ubuntu packages by default are now built with PIE, BIND_NOW, SMACK, RELRO etc. These will all slow down performance but are modern expected hardening. FreeBSD I think still does not do this by default? and as such ubuntu is managing to beat FreeBSD whilst also adding exploit mitigations which is impressive. It is a real shame the default ports compile and base has not been looked into but instead it all has been kept on conservative approach which is no exploit protection and to compile for the lowest denominator like a 486 cpu. Hardened bsd has done some good work on this but I see they were forced to fork away because their changes were rejected on the base system. As a final note I assumed clang no longer has a noticeable disadvantage vs gcc, if it does then that's bad news for the base files. If I Am wrong on the above please feel free to correct me. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOhm=5rjvSxWYRHdGWQRXqZd%2BCnEsNcHys9ax=xfFbFjKKH%2BsQ>