Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:32:41 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang Message-ID: <AANLkTinEXZgvnRxnfWA8PvUuDOFp36oFCwa34nenYWWq@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Martin Matuska wrote: > 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) ... > 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 Methodological objections aside, thank you for conducting tests and publishing the results. Are you going to continue to conduct tests as lang/gcc4* (the default for USE_GCC/USE_FORTRAN may be switched from 4.5 to 4.6 after the upcoming release of 4.6) and clang (there seem to be improvements in the more recent versions -- e.g., http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=127208 ) are updated? b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinEXZgvnRxnfWA8PvUuDOFp36oFCwa34nenYWWq>