On 16/09/2012 00:34, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
The executive summary: GENERIC kernels compiled with clang 3.2 are
slightly faster than those compiled by gcc 4.2.1, though the difference
will not very noticeable in practice.
It has been my impression in the past, that math heavy applications
be
On 2012-09-16 07:25, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
If you can provide the tests, I can rerun it on some Nehalem class
workstations I have access to. I unfortunately don't have access to
SNB/Romley hardware yet.
I did these tests as follows:
- Install a recent -CURRENT snapshot on the box (or r
On 2012-09-16 07:19, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
I tried to map the CPUID into more human-friendly family moniker, and it
seems that these are Pentium-4 class CPUs. Am I right ?
Yes, it is apparently a Nocona model, this is pa
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
>> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
>> kern
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
> kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
>
> The attached text f
On 2012-09-16 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
the fact that the difference is so small is interesting,
and it might almost suggests that the test is dominated by
other factors than the compiler.
Yes, this result was more or less what I expected: runtime performance
is probably related more to har
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
> kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
the fact that the diffe
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1] contains more information about the tests,
some semi-cooked performanc
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:43:12AM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:13:11PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > Compiling libm on
> >
> > CPU: AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 248 (2192.01-MHz K8-class CPU)
> > Origin = "AuthenticAMD" Id = 0xf5a Family = f Model = 5 Stepping
On 2012-09-06 12:20, David Chisnall wrote:
...
There may also be a difference in whether -ffast-math is the default on each
compiler. On x86, this will replace a number of libm calls with (much faster,
but less accurate) SSE or x87 instructions. If this is enabled by default with
clang and n
On 6 Sep 2012, at 09:43, Roman Divacky wrote:
> Was this compiled as amd64 or i386? Also, can you send me the test case?
> So that we can explore the difference. The working theory now is SSE vs FPU
> mathematics, but it would be nice to see the testcase.
There may also be a difference in whether
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:13:11PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:31:26AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 2012-09-05 01:40, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > ...
> > > Steve does have a point. Posting the results of
> > >CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc for config.log (and maybe
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:31:26AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-05 01:40, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> ...
> > Steve does have a point. Posting the results of
> >CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc for config.log (and maybe poking through
> >the code to figure out what *FLAGS were used elsewher
I've been compiling clang with itself on PPC64 for a while now. Works quite
good :)
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:44:00PM -0400, Justin Hibbits wrote:
> Actually, Nathan does say it's gcc's fault in a comment on that bug.
> However, I do all my clang work compiling it with gcc4.2.1, so run into
> th
Actually, Nathan does say it's gcc's fault in a comment on that bug.
However, I do all my clang work compiling it with gcc4.2.1, so run into
this constantly when I forget to add the flag.
- Justin
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> What makes you think it's a bug in llvm co
What makes you think it's a bug in llvm code and not a plain gcc miscompile?
Other people seem to compile llvm on PPC64 with gcc and -fstrict-aliasing
just fine. They just dont happen to use gcc4.2.1. Ie. gcc47 is reported
to not have this problem. I personally can confirm that fbsd+gcc48 is ok to
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-05 11:36, David Chisnall wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>
>>>TThe
>>>
>>>-fno-strict-aliasing is not really my choice, but it was introduced
>>>in the past by Nathan Whitehorn, who apparent
On 2012-09-05 11:36, David Chisnall wrote:
On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Dimitry Andric wrote:
TThe
-fno-strict-aliasing is not really my choice, but it was introduced
in the past by Nathan Whitehorn, who apparently saw problems without
it. It will hopefully disappear in the future.
Cla
On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> These are just the default FreeBSD optimization flags for building
> clang, which are probably used by the majority of users out there.
> This is the case that I was interested in particularly. The
> -fno-strict-aliasing is not really my ch
On 2012-09-05 01:40, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
Steve does have a point. Posting the results of
CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc for config.log (and maybe poking through
the code to figure out what *FLAGS were used elsewhere) is more
valuable than the data is in its current state (unfortunately..
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> >On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> >>I recently performed a series of
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >>I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
> >>10.0-CURRENT, parti
On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
...
The benchmark is
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
> clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
>
> The attached text file[1] cont
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>
> I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
> clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
>
> The attached text file[1] contain
On 09/04/12 22:39, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
> 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
> clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
>
> The attached text file[1] contains more inform
Hi all,
I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1] contains more information about the tests,
some semi-cooked performance data, and my conclusions
27 matches
Mail list logo
