From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar 12 03:32:42 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97157106566B;
	Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:32:42 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com)
Received: from mail-gy0-f182.google.com (mail-gy0-f182.google.com
	[209.85.160.182])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C6B8FC13;
	Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:32:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gyg13 with SMTP id 13so287312gyg.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject
	:from:to:content-type;
	bh=41hIQGrLZTnAR+880aRyOLitQJa9HGyfd+6ae89diPQ=;
	b=pGx1DG4nK+qwVGGbF4xBdonIcBACW8B46NqrhTuLz7351zh+hoBKhfr6Pt3t60ADMF
	G1CdmvW+TQiA822AtUuD5ZBqRp1HijF7AhScWffT8YYd1Ivk3g98Mpj5yXRNNeVpD0xx
	BPDog57SSN1nBACIPw/9LLdC66izqUtisUv8w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	b=eWoEK1+Haam/qT0wNURpzLfXt04o6G1gkQxneoBf/8tTiF9xYu8lt6tMMTmqVJBReP
	RhdwaycAp/4oTc8Ka4QkaLHX1Ktp/DRoC/he3YIELhu/9fy0b0EiviUlq4Ny5O2xkVBQ
	mWLr+3AEp8P9ihOPEHJL4jlkf1EBzxLUlq/HE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.193.67 with SMTP id j43mr3768362yhn.241.1299900761369;
	Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.103.137 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:32:41 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinEXZgvnRxnfWA8PvUuDOFp36oFCwa34nenYWWq@mail.gmail.com>
From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>
To: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org>,
	FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: 
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:32:42 -0000

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.