by the way, clang did compile almost exactly 2X faster than gcc. llvm-gcc was just a bit faster than clang - but only a few percent faster.
I tried compiling the C refbot with all 3 compilers, and then running a search from the opening position and get these numbers: GCC ============= real 0m11.663s user 0m11.549s sys 0m0.024s LLVM-GCC ============= real 0m13.799s user 0m13.737s sys 0m0.004s CLANG ============= real 0m13.614s user 0m13.069s sys 0m0.020s But I noticed that CLANG complained about the -march=native switch to gcc - so that could be part of the explanation for why it isn't quite as fast. I did not try to find better compiler options - I used the default -O3 for optimization and -march=native - Don 2009/9/7 Mark Boon <[email protected]> > > On Sep 6, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Don Dailey wrote: > > I tried both llvm-gcc and CLANG. I did not have any trouble getting them > to work for my 64 bit chess program. > > I didn't try too hard, but neither is producing executables as fast as > gcc. llvm-gcc is the slowest about 20% slower than gcc and clang is only a > little slower than gcc. > > Since I developed with gcc it is very likely that the program and the way I > write code is "tuned" to work well with gcc. > > Perhaps I will try this with the GO program, which is not heavily > optimized. > > I grabbed and compiled the latest llvm and clang - so I cannot be accused > of using outdated versions. And I didn't use the debug versions either. > > But I will keep my eye on llvm and clang. > > > > From what I've seen, LLVM should be comparable to gcc or faster. Of course > whenever anyone publishes this kind of comparison you have to wonder how > biased they are. And supposedly compile-times are several times faster than > gcc, which doesn't matter for the final product of course but is nice during > development. > > > Maybe it would be interesting to compile a ref-bot on the Mac and see how it > compares. Would Fuego compile on a Mac with XCode? That might provide even > more a real-world comparison. > > From what I've read so far it sounds like Objective C 2.0 offers many of the > things I like about Java. And then it offers a few niceties Java doesn't > offer (yet). It also claims > a seamless connection to C-code. Java and C# can call into C-code, but doing > it right is so much work you'd think twice before doing it unless you have a > substantial library that stands on its own. If it's really seamless there's > little that stops you from sticking in a few small routines in plain C that > are optimized to the bone. > > Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
