On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common > unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority. > > i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc. > > clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization > (that trades space) at all, and at -O2 is far slower. > Yes, Clang in general produces slower binaries than gcc. Is that in dispute or something? Or is this just repetition in case we didn't hear you the first time? Try thinking of the transition as a step back to take many steps forward. Or just change your compiler. Complaining on this list is definitely the wrong place though. Those who have offended your sensibilities by moving to Clang don't live here. People have already done nice work on the benchmarks: http://blog.vx.sk/archives/25-FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark-gcc-base-vs-gcc-ports-vs-clang.html -- Adam Vande More _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
