On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@hsivonen.fi> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > > Here's a bunch of data why "let's switch compilers" is not necessarily > > easy (I happen to have gathered that recently): > > Thank you. > > > Newer versions of clang-cl might generate faster code, but they crash > > during the build: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33997 > > I'm guessing using a very new clang was what allowed Chrome to switch > from MSVC to clang? (Chrome accepted a binary size increase on 32-bit > Windows as a result of switching to clang.) > I also found references to performance hits in their issue tracker. Specifically, it looked like process startup and new tab times regressed. But I could find no numbers quantifying it. We should view their decision as having to do more with using a unified and open source toolchain [that they can patch, improve, and deploy in days instead of months] instead of purely performance. It's a huge win for Chrome's developers (target 1 toolchain instead of N) and it will allow them to move faster since they're not beholden to any lagging one-off toolchain. They still have to worry about packaging for Chromium, of course. Hopefully this will result in faster distro packaging for newer LLVM/Clang releases (not unlike how Rust is forcing the world to come to terms with a toolchain that is released every 6 weeks). _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
