<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>O<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">n Nov 19, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Owen Anderson <<a href="mailto:resistor@mac.com">resistor@mac.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><div><div>On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><br><blockquote type="cite">In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler.<br></blockquote><br>I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself...<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Compared to a compiler in the same category as PCC, whose pinnacle of optimization is doing register allocation? I'm not surprised at all.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Though, at -O0 llvm's goal is not to optimize but to be fast, no? </div><div><br></div><div>I was certainly wondering what would prevent LLVM from being as fast as the go compiler. Do they need to be able to stream code from the front to middle to back ends or something? (Can llvm do that?)</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>--Owen</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>LLVM Developers mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu"><a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a></a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>