On 2012-09-16 07:19, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
I tried to map the CPUID into more human-friendly family moniker, and it
seems that these are Pentium-4 class CPUs. Am I right ?
Yes, it is apparently a Nocona model, this is
On 2012-09-16 07:25, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
If you can provide the tests, I can rerun it on some Nehalem class
workstations I have access to. I unfortunately don't have access to
SNB/Romley hardware yet.
I did these tests as follows:
- Install a recent -CURRENT snapshot on the box (or
On 16/09/2012 00:34, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
The executive summary: GENERIC kernels compiled with clang 3.2 are
slightly faster than those compiled by gcc 4.2.1, though the difference
will not very noticeable in practice.
It has been my impression in the past, that math heavy applications
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
the fact that the
On 2012-09-16 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
the fact that the difference is so small is interesting,
and it might almost suggests that the test is dominated by
other factors than the compiler.
Yes, this result was more or less what I expected: runtime performance
is probably related more to
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of GENERIC
kernels compiled by gcc 4.2.1 and by clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1]
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Konstantin Belousov
kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:34:45AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
By request, I performed a series of kernel performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing the runtime performance of
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:13:11PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:31:26AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-09-05 01:40, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
Steve does have a point. Posting the results of
CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc for config.log (and maybe poking
On 6 Sep 2012, at 09:43, Roman Divacky wrote:
Was this compiled as amd64 or i386? Also, can you send me the test case?
So that we can explore the difference. The working theory now is SSE vs FPU
mathematics, but it would be nice to see the testcase.
There may also be a difference in whether
On 2012-09-06 12:20, David Chisnall wrote:
...
There may also be a difference in whether -ffast-math is the default on each
compiler. On x86, this will replace a number of libm calls with (much faster,
but less accurate) SSE or x87 instructions. If this is enabled by default with
clang and
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:43:12AM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:13:11PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
Compiling libm on
CPU: AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 248 (2192.01-MHz K8-class CPU)
Origin = AuthenticAMD Id = 0xf5a Family = f Model = 5 Stepping = 10
On 2012-09-05 01:40, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
Steve does have a point. Posting the results of
CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc for config.log (and maybe poking through
the code to figure out what *FLAGS were used elsewhere) is more
valuable than the data is in its current state (unfortunately..
On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Dimitry Andric wrote:
These are just the default FreeBSD optimization flags for building
clang, which are probably used by the majority of users out there.
This is the case that I was interested in particularly. The
-fno-strict-aliasing is not really my
On 2012-09-05 11:36, David Chisnall wrote:
On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Dimitry Andric wrote:
TThe
-fno-strict-aliasing is not really my choice, but it was introduced
in the past by Nathan Whitehorn, who apparently saw problems without
it. It will hopefully disappear in the future.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Dimitry Andric dimi...@andric.com wrote:
On 2012-09-05 11:36, David Chisnall wrote:
On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:31, Dimitry Andric wrote:
TThe
-fno-strict-aliasing is not really my choice, but it was introduced
in the past by Nathan Whitehorn, who
What makes you think it's a bug in llvm code and not a plain gcc miscompile?
Other people seem to compile llvm on PPC64 with gcc and -fstrict-aliasing
just fine. They just dont happen to use gcc4.2.1. Ie. gcc47 is reported
to not have this problem. I personally can confirm that fbsd+gcc48 is ok to
Actually, Nathan does say it's gcc's fault in a comment on that bug.
However, I do all my clang work compiling it with gcc4.2.1, so run into
this constantly when I forget to add the flag.
- Justin
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Roman Divacky rdiva...@freebsd.org wrote:
What makes you think
I've been compiling clang with itself on PPC64 for a while now. Works quite
good :)
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:44:00PM -0400, Justin Hibbits wrote:
Actually, Nathan does say it's gcc's fault in a comment on that bug.
However, I do all my clang work compiling it with gcc4.2.1, so run into
this
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:31:26AM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-09-05 01:40, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
Steve does have a point. Posting the results of
CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS/etc for config.log (and maybe poking through
the code to figure out what *FLAGS were used elsewhere) is
On 09/04/12 22:39, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi all,
I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1] contains more information about the tests,
some
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1] contains more information about the
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Dimitry Andric dimi...@andric.com wrote:
Hi all,
I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
The attached text file[1] contains more
On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against
clang 3.1 and clang 3.2.
...
The benchmark is
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
I recently performed a series of compiler
25 matches
Mail list logo
