[llvm-dev] -O1 with clang and gcc

[Michael Kruse via llvm-dev]

I recommend using -fsanitize=address / -fsanitize=memory which should
be faster and more accurate than valgrind.

Michael


2018-05-31 16:39 GMT-05:00 M. Chaturvedi <mmanu.chaturvedi at gmail.com>:
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> `-O0` is too slow with Valgrind and `-O2` is not recommended.  We use `-O1`
> in Valgrind runs.
>
>> Use of -O2 and above is not recommended as Memcheck occasionally reports
>> uninitialised-value errors which don't really exist.
> http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/quick-start.html
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de>
> wrote:
>>
>> What are you trying to achieve? If faster runs is the goal, why not
>> compile with -O2?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> 2018-05-31 16:27 GMT-05:00 M. Chaturvedi via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > The binary gotten via clang's `-O1` runs much slower (3x) than that
>> > gotten
>> > via GCC's `-O1`.
>> >
>> > Reproducible with:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/m-chaturvedi/test_valgrind_slowdown
>> >
>> > We are seeing this difference between gcc and clang at other places as
>> > well.
>> >
>> > The `-O0` and `-O2` times are comparable, however.   Are there some
>> > compile
>> > time flags one could add to make the `-O1` times comparable?
>> >
>> > Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere already.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Mmanu
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >
>
>