Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 10:38:49 -0500 From: Dan Mack <mack@macktronics.com> To: Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: my build time impact of clang 5.0 Message-ID: <m2mv58qm0m.fsf@macktronics.com> In-Reply-To: <1507039968621-0.post@n6.nabble.com> (Jakub Lach's message of "Tue, 3 Oct 2017 07:12:48 -0700 (MST)") References: <m2lgktv1pg.fsf@macktronics.com> <1507039968621-0.post@n6.nabble.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl> writes: > On the other hand, I'm having tremendous increases in Unixbench scores > comparing to > 11-STABLE in the April (same machine, clang 4 then, clang 5 now) (about > 40%). > > I have never seen something like that, and I'm running Unixbench on -STABLE > since > 2008. Agree; clang/llvm and friends have added a lot of value. It's worth it I think. It is however getting harder to continue with a source based update model, which I prefer even though most people just use package managers today. I still like to read the commits and understand what's changing, why, and select the version I am comfortable with given the nuances of my configuration(s). I think that's why 'knock-on-wood' I've been able to track mostly CURRENT and/or STABLE without any outages since about 1998 on production systems :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2mv58qm0m.fsf>