Hallo Fred, vous ecrit au Sun, 27 Nov 2022 12:29:45 +0000:
> > The error is the omission of a "-" > > sign in front of the switch "XlS", > > Oooops, indeed, fixed just now in Lazarus forum. Good. Does the version dependence also get mention there? ... > > And got rather disappointed. The llvm-based compiler did WORSE > > innearly all respects. > > Yes, indeed, without any optimization, fpc-llvm does worse than > "pure" fpc. All changes with optimization -O3 and -O4. Well, I usually don't do much optimization. When an application is fast enough and does what it should, optimizing it just increases the risk of malfunctions, and debugging - i.e. finding the cause of a malfnction - can become extremely difficult. And there's word that there ARE malfunctions that ONLY occur at higher optimization levels... But indeed, at -O2 llvm seems to come apar to fpc's speed, although executable sizes still are a lot larger, around 40...50%. > Note that llvm "is" optimization, without it there is no sense to use > it. I did some test with float calculations and the difference was > big (much better for fpc-llvm) when adding -O3 or -O4 parameters. The question is whether this shows under the given conditions - if it becomes noticible only with extensive floating point calculations, it can have its area of application. But if that's not what you mainly need, it might not be worth it. And if you're short of (disk) space, llvm might even be detrimental. But I think, I'll have to do some further experimentation yet. Thank you for your comments. -- (Weitergabe von Adressdaten, Telefonnummern u.ä. ohne Zustimmung nicht gestattet, ebenso Zusendung von Werbung oder ähnlichem) ----------------------------------------------------------- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, S. Schicktanz ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
