On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:17, Ed Schouten<ed_at_80386.nl> wrote: > * Pawel Worach <pawel.worach_at_gmail.com> wrote: >> So runtime performance is on par with gcc, code size is a bit bigger >> so there is still room for optimization in LLVM. > > I don't agree on the code size. Code size is comparable. I just did a > quick ls through /bin. There also seem to be a lot of cases where Clang > generates smaller binaries. > > Some time ago the binaries were indeed a lot bigger, but that turned out > to be a bug in Clang, where a compiler flag had a wrong default value, > namely the flag that determined whether zero-initialized data had to go > in BSS or not. Here are some updated results with llvm/clang r73189. Compile time and executable size for amd64 LINT (without profiling because clang does not support it yet): clang: 314.582u 29.555s 5:44.72 99.8% 14250+2428k 0+0io 481pf+0w text data bss dec hex filename 18034015 3563057 2910192 24507264 175f380 kernel -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 27208927 Jun 11 14:34 kernel gcc: 510.206u 30.260s 8:56.93 100.6% 7032+2414k 0+0io 14pf+0w text data bss dec hex filename 17342564 2623505 2918704 22884773 15d31a5 kernel -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 24115620 Jun 11 14:45 kernel Also an updated ports/benchmarks/libmicro run available here: http://www.vlakno.cz/~pwo/lm/2009-06-11/lm.html -- PawelReceived on Thu Jun 11 2009 - 15:09:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:49 UTC