[cfe-dev] Compilation time regression?

[Will Wilson]

Interesting you raised this Bart. I've also had a suspicion there may be a
few compilation performance regressions but I'm afraid I've got nothing to
back that up as of yet. If I get the time I'll try and put my suspicions to
the test.

However, I was wondering if anyone were running any form of performance
regression tests for clang compilation times? I realise it might be time
consuming to maintain but the data could be invaluable for preserving clang
performance. Even if it were internal tracked it would just be nice to know
someone had an eye on it given how important a metric it is to the average
coder.

Cheers,
Will.


On 23 November 2013 23:00, Bart Janssens <bart at bartjanssens.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently upgraded from "Apple LLVM version 4.2 (clang-425.0.24)
> (based on LLVM 3.2svn)"
> to "Apple LLVM version 5.0 (clang-500.2.79) (based on LLVM 3.3svn)"
> and noticed a large increase in compilation time for our code, which
> relies heavily on Boost Proto.
>
> The problem is confirmed using a small test (attached), yielding the
> following compilation times:
> Clang 3.2 OS X binaries from the site: 1.69 s
> Clang 3.3 OS X binaries from the site: 7.93 s
> The LLVM3.3 Apple version: 10.66 s
>
> Is this a bug, or is there some setting that can be changed to speed
> up the compilation of this kind of template code? The new version
> seems to use only about half as much RAM as before, so maybe there's
> some memory/speed trade-off?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bart
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>


-- 
*Indefiant Ltd.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20131124/fa8182eb/attachment.html>