Travis Boucher: > Although it's design > promotes all sorta of optimization techniques, its still pretty young > (compared to gcc) and just doesn't have all of the optimization stuff > gcc has.
I have already done hundred of tests and benchmarks with LDC and llvm-gcc, and I'm starting to understand its optimizations. I am mostly ignorant of LLVM still, but I'm giving a bit of help tuning it, this improvement was motivated by me: http://blog.llvm.org/2009/12/advanced-topics-in-redundant-load.html Compared to GCC LLVM lacks vectorization (this can be important for certain heavy numerical computing code), profile-guided optimization (this is usually less important, it's uncommon that it gives more than 5-25% performance improvement), but it has a link-time optimizations that gcc lacks (about as important as profile-guided optimization or a little more). LLVM produces bad X86 floating point code still, but its int/FP SSE code is about as good as GCC one or better (but it's not vectorized, so far). GCC is older and it knows few extra small/tiny optimization tricks, but in most situations they don't create a large difference in performance, they are often quite specific. So overall LLVM may sometime produce a little slower code, but in many situations it's about as good or even better (I can show a large amount of cases where LLVM is better). So the asm quality difference is smaller than you seem to imply. If the size of such performance differences are important for you, then you may want to use the Intel compiler instead of GCC, because it's sometimes better than GCC. Bye, bearophile
