[LLVMdev] FYI: Phoronix GCC vs. LLVM-GCC benchmarks

Daniel Dunbar daniel at zuster.org
Wed Sep 16 10:36:21 PDT 2009

Since we are in the area, what *should* O1 do?

It's basically good for nothing, since it doesn't tune for size or
performance. The only good I personally ever have for it is once in a
while there is a miscompile at -O1 which narrows the problem.

Would it be crazy to make -O1 equivalent to -Os?

 - Daniel

On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Stefano Delli Ponti wrote:
>> Chris Lattner:
>>> Comparing -O3 (and even -O4) is interesting, but we want all
>>> optimization levels to perform better than GCC :).  Lots of people
>>> use  -O2 and -Os, so comparing against other compiler's -O2 and -Os
>>> levels  is just as interesting as comparing -O3 vs -O3.
>> My thinking was that, for instance, -02 for GCC and -02 for LLVM(-
>> GCC) do not necessarily mean the same thing, they may be not /
>> commensurable/.
>> But perhaps, my ignorance, you are saying that they _are_, that LLVM
>> assigns the same types of optimizations as GCC to the different
>> levels.
> Right, we want them to be roughly comparable.
> O0 -> best debug experience, fastest compile times.
> O2 -> optimize without bloating the code too much and without burning
> *too* many cycles.
> O3 -> take more time and produce fatter code to get faster code.
> O1 is something of a wasteland with no clear purpose :)
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list