On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@hsivonen.fi> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote:
> > Here's a bunch of data why "let's switch compilers" is not necessarily
> > easy (I happen to have gathered that recently):
> Thank you.
> > Newer versions of clang-cl might generate faster code, but they crash
> > during the build: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33997
> I'm guessing using a very new clang was what allowed Chrome to switch
> from MSVC to clang? (Chrome accepted a binary size increase on 32-bit
> Windows as a result of switching to clang.)

I also found references to performance hits in their issue tracker.
Specifically, it looked like process startup and new tab times regressed.
But I could find no numbers quantifying it.

We should view their decision as having to do more with using a unified and
open source toolchain [that they can patch, improve, and deploy in days
instead of months] instead of purely performance. It's a huge win for
Chrome's developers (target 1 toolchain instead of N) and it will allow
them to move faster since they're not beholden to any lagging one-off
toolchain. They still have to worry about packaging for Chromium, of
course. Hopefully this will result in faster distro packaging for newer
LLVM/Clang releases (not unlike how Rust is forcing the world to come to
terms with a toolchain that is released every 6 weeks).
dev-platform mailing list

Reply via email to