Yes, of course. I refer to the significant slowdown of Rust compiler when compiled with -pthreads vs -win32threads flavor. If Rust can be compiled without <mutex> and <thread> on win32threads, why should it slow down on pthreads? Isn't the only difference betwen the win32threads and pthreads is the addition of pthreads, <mutex> and <thread>?
Yaron 2014-09-26 11:39 GMT+03:00 Vadim Chugunov <vadi...@gmail.com>: > Hi Yaron, > Not sure I understand your question. Wasn't <mutex> one of the more > important C++11 features that LLVM would like to use? > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Yaron Keren <yaron.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Vadim, > > Thanks for the feedback on the -win32. A dependency on a small DLL with > BSD license does not sound too bad, but performance regression is obviously > a serious problem. > > However, by disabling <mutex> use with -pthreads rust performance should > be same as -win32 threads? > Saying it another way, does the -win32 version have any feature that > -pthreads vesion do not have? > > Yaron > > > 2014-09-25 9:52 GMT+03:00 Vadim Chugunov <vadi...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi, >> I think I can at least answer why the Rust project prefers to use >> mingw-w64-win32threads: >> 1. It does not inject dependency on libwinpthread.dll, which is nice. >> 2. Those who tried building LLVM with mingw-w64-pthreads, had reported >> significant slowdown of the resulting Rust compiler (as compared to one >> linked to LLVM compiled with the win32threads flavor). Profiling seemed >> to point towards libpthreads' implementation of mutex. I had checked the >> source, and indeed, it looked not very efficient ( >> http://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/bugs/344). It would be nice to get a >> second opinion, though, maybe I missed something. >> >> Vadim >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandl...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Óscar Fuentes <o...@wanadoo.es> wrote: >>> >>>> The best thing for understanding their reasons is to ask them to speak >>>> up. >>>> >>> >>> I asked them directly, and this thread is a chance for them to speak up >>> again. I *think* I've addressed the concerns of those I've spoken to >>> directly, but there may be other folks or other concerns or I may have >>> messed it up. =] >>> >>> >>>> My experience on the MinGW/MinGW-w64 communities is that those who >>>> choose MinGW is because of ignorance about MinGW-w64 and because there >>>> are lots of documents on the 'net that references MinGW. MinGW is, to >>>> all practical effects, a zombie project and there is no reason to prefer >>>> it over MinGW-w64 nowadays. >>>> >>> >>> :: shrug :: >>> >>> I'm not such a user, and so I don't want to speculate as to what >>> motivates them. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm...@cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm...@cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
