On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 12:42 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 06:36:18PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 10:15:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Sept 2026 at 09:06, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > == defconfig FULL build == > > > > > > > > before after delta > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > Threadripper, gcc 32.5s 26.3s -6.1s (-19%) > > > > Threadripper, clang 34.5s 27.2s -7.3s (-21%) > > > > EPYC, gcc 28.7s 20.6s -8.1s (-28%) > > > > EPYC, clang 39.8s 32.2s -7.6s (-19%) > > > > M2, gcc 519.3s 512.4s -6.9s (-1%) > > > > M2, clang 634.5s 569.4s -65.1s (-10%) > > > > > > There's something odd going on with that M2 gcc build. Why is it such > > > an odd duck? > > > > Ugh dear lord I think the LLM somehow corrupted the numbers... Let me > > re-run those myself locally and come back with the actual times! > > OK numbers are in: > > M2, gcc 564.7s 512.1s -52.6s (-9%) > M2, clang 615.1s 564.1s -51.0s (-8%) > > From the v1: > > M2, gcc 564.0s 512.4s -51.6s (-9%) > M2, clang 616.1s 569.4s -46.7s (-8%) > > (Tested as per the cover letter pre-reqs, i.e. applying dependent series > first etc.) > > Not sure on the -5s delta on the clang build :) that might have been me
Clang is faster on Thursdays. > being more disciplined this time to not use the laptop at the same time. > > But broadly in line with the original numbers. > > > > > > > > > Linus > > > > -- > > Cheers, Lorenzo > > -- > Cheers, Lorenzo -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
