Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:07:10 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <op.wf3wd8vf34t2sn@tech304> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181749160.78762@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org> <4FCF9C07.2000607@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206161815550.41364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf0i64pg34t2sn@me-pc> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206172212440.2506@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3upvdc34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181749160.78762@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:50:37 -0500, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > I don't say clang is just bad, but i prefer real data over hype. This is the most memorable and impacting set of graphs that I remember. I haven't followed the data much since. http://clang.llvm.org/performance-2008-10-31.html Now imagine having to rebuild projects constantly during your dev cycle. The time savings is going to add up quick.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wf3wd8vf34t2sn>