>> --- >> compiler | compile+link time | test suite run time | binary size >> gcc 4.1 | 17s | 1.9s | 43KB >> clang+llvm | 1m 13s | 1.4s | 188KB >> --- >> >> Although llvm is much slower at compiling (the linking part seems to be >> really slow due to the -O2 optimizations), the binary produced is much >> faster :) >> > > This doesn't makes sense to me. Are you using an optimized "release" > version of clang?
no, it was a debug build. With a release build of llvm, it takes only 10 seconds to build pcre! It's even faster than gcc 4.1 :) Of course this could still be better because of the overhead of the ccc script. >> P.S.2.: why isn't LLVM deployed to replace gcc? isn't it capable to act >> as a >> drop-in replacement for gcc with the gcc front-end (for now)? Noone tackle this question.. My question is for real: can llvm already be used as a drop-in replacement of gcc or not? e.g. can I already rebuild my gentoo system (including the kernel) with llvm? :) Nuno P.S.: the clang build is currently broken because of a commit to LLVM's ADT/StringMap.h. _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
