>>>> --- >>>> 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. >> > > Much better...:-) I'd be surprised if ccc is introducing much overhead. > The best way to know is to measure. If you are running on Mac OS X, Shark > is a wonderful performance analysis tool to tell us exactly where the > overhead is.
:) no, I don't have a mac (please don't ban me :P). I don't really know any similar tools on linux. (K)cachegrind is nice, but is slow as hell. Nuno _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
