On 02/23/2012 05:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2
Somewhat relevant here:
http://clang.debian.net/
Debian's attempt to recompile the whole distro with clang, and a good
summary of the problems, although no analysis of performance so far.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top'
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:18:34AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Somewhat relevant here:
http://clang.debian.net/
Debian's attempt to recompile the whole distro with clang, and a good
summary of the problems, although no analysis of performance so far.
Problems include the fact that
On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
the spec files to request those extra flags, for PGO it really requires
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
the spec
On 02/23/2012 05:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
the spec files to request those extra flags, for PGO it really requires
some work from the packager (but e.g.
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
the spec files to request those extra flags, for PGO it really requires
some work from the packager (but e.g. bash/grep/awk, perhaps perl/python
etc. would definitely improve, gcc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/16/2012 01:22 AM, jonathan wrote:
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest
apple IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
unless linus drops gcc as well, we'll at a
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:22:51AM +0100, jonathan wrote:
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Karel Zak k...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:22:51AM +0100, jonathan wrote:
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
Rahul Sundaram writes:
Considering the recent changes that Apple has been making to CUPS, I
think it is more than a pure technical choice.
That's very obvious. Apple does not like GPL.
pgpShpX5VBeIf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:56:59AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
needless-rant-please-ignore
It's very unfortunate that this high standard of requirements for
disruptive changes in Fedora wasn't properly applied to some of the
recent disruptive changes. Particularly the very recent unnamed
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
unless linus drops gcc as well, we'll at a
On 02/16/2012 10:02 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:22:03AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
unless linus drops gcc as well,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
GCC has a big community of very dedicated people. LLVM has no such
community. So IMHO GCC will be more high quality compiler than LLVM until
LLVM gets such community.
That can't be expected to continue now that
Vladimir Makarov (vmaka...@redhat.com) said:
Since I was a bit (intentionally) curt and dismissive in my other
response in this thread, I'll add some anecdata here. I have actually
tried building xserver with clang and running the standard set of
microbenchmarks. I found one relevant path
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
wrote:
GCC has a big community of very dedicated people. LLVM has no such
community. So IMHO GCC will be more high quality compiler than LLVM
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Vladimir Makarov (vmaka...@redhat.com) said:
Since I was a bit (intentionally) curt and dismissive in my other
response in this thread, I'll add some anecdata here. I have actually
tried building xserver with clang and
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:12:06AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
The another usual mistake when people compare speed of GCC and LLVM
is to use -O2 for the both compilers. But the true is that -O1 of
GCC is -O2 of LLVM with the point of code generation quality. The
compiler speed of GCC
On 02/16/2012 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vladimir Makarovvmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
GCC has a big community of very dedicated people. LLVM has no such
community. So IMHO GCC will be more high quality compiler than LLVM until
LLVM gets such community.
On 02/15/2012 11:52 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Not quite. LLVM can be used to build the kernel
No, that is simply not true. Factually incorrect.
I have been working on building the kernel with LLVM, with many changes
submitted (merged over a year ago), but LLVM still needs several obscure
On 02/16/2012 10:37 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:22:03AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for several
important linux package.
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM, jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com wrote:
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do
On 2/15/12 7:22 PM, jonathan wrote:
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for several
important linux
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:22:51AM +0100, jonathan wrote:
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for
On 02/15/2012 10:38 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're already building at least one package (hfsplus-tools) with llvm
because it relies on non-standard C extensions that gcc doesn't support,
and I believe the current software rasteriser in mesa depends on it. In
terms of it being the
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
unless linus drops gcc as well, we'll at a minimum need to keep it to
build the kernel itself.
Not
31 matches
Mail list logo
