Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:33:37 +0100 From: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.org Subject: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang Message-ID: <4D7943B1.1030604@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi everyone, we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc, ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite. Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors and we have tried different -march= flags to compare binary performance of the same compiler with different flags. Here is some statistics from the results: - clang falls 10% behind the base gcc 4.2.1 (test average) - gcc 4.5 from ports gives 5-10% better average performance than the base gcc 4.2.1 - 4% average penalty for Intel Atom and -march=nocona (using gcc from base) - core i7 class processors run best with -march=nocona (using gcc from base) This benchmark speaks only for perl, but it tests quite a lot of "generic" features so we a are seriously considering using ports gcc for heavily used ports (e.g. PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL) and suggesting that an user should be provided with a easily settable choice of using gcc 4.5 for ports. A first step in this direction is in this PR (allowing build-only dependency on GCC): http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155408 More information, detailed test results and test configuration are at our blog: http://blog.vx.sk/archives/25-FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark-gcc-base-vs-gcc-ports-vs-clang.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D7943B1.1030604>