Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:17:18 +0000 From: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <CAHhngE0eLR9PEoyn2TLuV7%2Bz7NtsHMgdsj6YbSm3ZQijDxTNjw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181829210.99007@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> <op.wf3wd8vf34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181829210.99007@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > And the facts are: Lots of worktime were spent to make new C compiler from > scratch and this resulted with thing 5 times larger, working at similar > speed and producing similar code to GCC that is already considered bloat. > The truth is sad. Starting from fresh and not being able to beat 25-year old > bloated gcc is just funny. Another way of looking at it is after 25 years of optimization GCC is unable to beat a new compiler that's had almost none...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHhngE0eLR9PEoyn2TLuV7%2Bz7NtsHMgdsj6YbSm3ZQijDxTNjw>