I tried both llvm-gcc and CLANG. I did not have any trouble getting them
to work for my 64 bit chess program.
I didn't try too hard, but neither is producing executables as fast as
gcc. llvm-gcc is the slowest about 20% slower than gcc and clang is only a
little slower than gcc.
Since I developed with gcc it is very likely that the program and the way I
write code is tuned to work well with gcc.
Perhaps I will try this with the GO program, which is not heavily optimized.
I grabbed and compiled the latest llvm and clang - so I cannot be accused of
using outdated versions. And I didn't use the debug versions either.
But I will keep my eye on llvm and clang.
- Don
2009/9/6 Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com
On Sep 5, 2009, at 4:41 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
Found an interesting article on Snow Leopard at Ars Technica ... 20-some
pages.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars
Of interest to Computer Go programmers: the addition of blocks to C, which
allow closures and other fun stuff, much like Lisp. LLVM, which allows JIT
compilation to multiple architectures, including GPUs; Grand Central
Dispatch, which provides very light-weight concurrency; and CLANG, a new
compiler which is said to be quite an improvement over GCC. Open CL, which
leverages LLVM to program GPUs.
Seems interesting indeed. Does anyone know how Objective-C 2.0 compares in
speed to C? I like the promise of abstracting the CPU to the point where you
can execute either on the CPU or the GPU, depending on which is available
and which is suitable. I also like the blocks, it seems a little more
elegant and more flexible than anonymous functions in Java. Combined with
light-weight concurrency makes for an interesting combination.
Mark
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
