[LLVMdev] Phoronix: Benchmarking LLVM & Clang Against GCC 4.5
daniel at zuster.org
Tue Apr 27 07:42:29 PDT 2010
We haven't spent much time on Clang code quality. The results are
"interesting", but hardly surprising.
This is something I hope to spend some time on in the upcoming months, FWIW.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:37:53AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote:
>> On 27 April 2010 08:18, Stefano Delli Ponti
>> <stefano.delliponti at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > FYI
>> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1
>> For Apache and Dhrystone, the performance boost is good (but only the
>> former is really important), but for the rest, especially those with
>> image/sound processing, and HMMR, it's still far behind. Is this only
>> because there is no auto vectorization in LLVM?
> Doesn't llvm-gcc still lack autovectorization support as well? It's
> numbers are closer to the stock gcc releases suggesting the problem
> isn't from the absence of vectorization, no?
>> Would be good to know why some programs were not compiled with Clang.
>> Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-dev