Plans for usage of LLVM's linker were just discussed on BSDNow
(from toolchain mailing list):
http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2016_08_24-the_fresh_bsd_experience
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain/2016-August/002240.html
- Eric
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016, Fernando Herrero
That's great news! Thanks a lot!
Excuse me if I drift off-topic, how about -flto? LTO requires both compiler
and linker support, however clang3? from ports still calls the system
linker 'ld'. LLVM has its own linker, 'lld', but it is not straightforward,
AFAIK, to make clang3? call it.
My trick u
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Eric A. Borisch wrote:
> FWIW, in MacPorts, we patch clang such that it can find the (MacPorts
> provided) libomp headers and library. This lets -fopenmp "just work,"
> and configure scripts can do their job. The libomp headers and lib in
> dedicated sub-directori
FWIW, in MacPorts, we patch clang such that it can find the (MacPorts
provided) libomp headers and library. This lets -fopenmp "just work,"
and configure scripts can do their job. The libomp headers and lib in
dedicated sub-directories to minimize the impact of -fopenmp adding
them to the include a
On 29 August 2016 at 09:30, Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote:
> 2016-08-29 3:04 GMT+02:00 K. Macy :
>
>> > I'm writing from my cellphone away from my computer, so take this with a
>> > grain of salt:
>> >
>> > -L/usr/local/llvm38/lib
>>
>> You're missing the point. If your webserver crashes every oth
2016-08-29 3:04 GMT+02:00 K. Macy :
> > I'm writing from my cellphone away from my computer, so take this with a
> > grain of salt:
> >
> > -L/usr/local/llvm38/lib
>
> You're missing the point. If your webserver crashes every other day,
> the fact that you can run a batch job to restart it doesn't
> I'm writing from my cellphone away from my computer, so take this with a
> grain of salt:
>
> -L/usr/local/llvm38/lib
You're missing the point. If your webserver crashes every other day,
the fact that you can run a batch job to restart it doesn't make it
OK.
No software written to date assumes
El 29 ago. 2016 12:36 a. m., "K. Macy" escribió:
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, K. Macy wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> With 11, one can even simply install devel/openmp which will only
install the libopenmp bits from llvm, and after that, base cc can do openmp.
> >
> > This isn't really useful unle
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, K. Macy wrote:
>>>
>>
>> With 11, one can even simply install devel/openmp which will only install
>> the libopenmp bits from llvm, and after that, base cc can do openmp.
>
> This isn't really useful unless the clang in base knows where to find
> libomp. Consideri
>>
>
> With 11, one can even simply install devel/openmp which will only install the
> libopenmp bits from llvm, and after that, base cc can do openmp.
This isn't really useful unless the clang in base knows where to find
libomp. Considering that even the devel/llvm ports aren't configured
proper
On Sunday, August 28, 2016, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:57 PM, K. Macy > wrote:
>
>> Can you point to other platforms where the default system compiler has
>> disabled functionality?
>>
>
> You have to install LLVM from elsewhere to get full functionality on OS X:
> Apple
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:57 PM, K. Macy wrote:
> Can you point to other platforms where the default system compiler has
> disabled functionality?
>
You have to install LLVM from elsewhere to get full functionality on OS X:
Apple only ships the parts that Xcode cares about. OTOH, this pretty muc
On Sunday, August 28, 2016, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2016, at 02:10, K. Macy >
> wrote:
> >
> >> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11.
> >> Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, witness)
> >> options enabled which make it significantly
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:55:37 +0200
Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2016, at 02:10, K. Macy wrote:
> >
> >> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11.
> >> Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, witness)
> >> options enabled which make it signifi
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Fernando Herrero Carrón
wrote:
> El 28/8/2016 14:56, "Dimitry Andric" escribió:
>>
>> On 28 Aug 2016, at 02:10, K. Macy wrote:
>> >
>> >> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11.
>> >> Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, in
El 28/8/2016 14:56, "Dimitry Andric" escribió:
>
> On 28 Aug 2016, at 02:10, K. Macy wrote:
> >
> >> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11.
> >> Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, witness)
> >> options enabled which make it significantly slowe
On 28 Aug 2016, at 02:10, K. Macy wrote:
>
>> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11.
>> Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, witness)
>> options enabled which make it significantly slower than release
>> versions. This is even obviously when you
> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD 11.
> Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants, witness)
> options enabled which make it significantly slower than release
> versions. This is even obviously when you run a Beta as a desktop. It
> just feels much sl
Yes, when going from FreeBSD 6 to 7 on a UP system. The latter was
a little slower.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Benchmarks-results-for-FreeBSD-11-tp6123994p6124925.html
Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:20:59 +0800
Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:12:24 +0200
> Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote:
>
> > Many ports offer an option to compile with optimized cflags. See for
> > instance http://www.freshports.org/multimedia/ffmpeg:
> >
> > OPTIMIZED_C
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:12:24 +0200
Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote:
> Many ports offer an option to compile with optimized cflags. See for
> instance http://www.freshports.org/multimedia/ffmpeg:
>
> OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=off: Use extra compiler optimizations
>
> though:
>
> SSE=on: Use
Many ports offer an option to compile with optimized cflags. See for
instance http://www.freshports.org/multimedia/ffmpeg:
OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=off: Use extra compiler optimizations
though:
SSE=on: Use SSE optimized routines
It turns out that optimization options are usually off by defaul
Il 2016-08-23 22:55 Erich Dollansky ha scritto:
> The problem here is that Phoronix took a Beta version of FreeBSD
> 11. Beta versions have a lot of debugging (malloc, invariants,
> witness) options enabled which make it significantly slower than
> release versions. This is even obviously when you
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:01:59 +0200
Lars Engels wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:02:15PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:14:23PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:48:46AM +0200, Andrea Brancatelli
> > > wrote:
> > > > Il 201
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:02:15PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:14:23PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:48:46AM +0200, Andrea Brancatelli wrote:
> > > Il 2016-08-21 08:45 Erich Dollansky ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > I am sure that some know
On 08/23/16 02:32, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 03:22:35 +
> Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, 11:31 AM Mark Linimon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:57:24AM +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
unless knowledgable people respond publicly and
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 03:22:35 +
Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, 11:31 AM Mark Linimon
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:57:24AM +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> > > unless knowledgable people respond publicly and/or in the phoronix
> > > forums [...] this interpret
Unixbench is slower for me since switching to 11-STABLE from 10-STABLE,
due to triple drop of 'Pipe Throughput'. Rest looks the same or better.
That's all I know.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Benchmarks-results-for-FreeBSD-11-tp61239
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:14:23PM +0200, Lars Engels wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:48:46AM +0200, Andrea Brancatelli wrote:
> > Il 2016-08-21 08:45 Erich Dollansky ha scritto:
> >
> > > I am sure that some know of this site:
> > >
> > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:48:46AM +0200, Andrea Brancatelli wrote:
> Il 2016-08-21 08:45 Erich Dollansky ha scritto:
>
> > I am sure that some know of this site:
> >
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4
> >
> > I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As
Il 2016-08-21 08:45 Erich Dollansky ha scritto:
> I am sure that some know of this site:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4
>
> I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As I do not have 11 on my
> machines, a stupid question. Are there still some debug
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:22:35AM +, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, 11:31 AM Mark Linimon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:57:24AM +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> > > unless knowledgable people respond publicly and/or in the phoronix
> > > forums [...] this interpretati
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, 11:31 AM Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:57:24AM +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> > unless knowledgable people respond publicly and/or in the phoronix
> > forums [...] this interpretation of reality will be fixed in decision-
> > makers' minds and consequentl
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:57:24AM +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> unless knowledgable people respond publicly and/or in the phoronix
> forums [...] this interpretation of reality will be fixed in decision-
> makers' minds and consequently the uptake (and support) of FreeBSD.
IIRC this has been d
Unfortunately people (customers, developers, hardward vendors) make
decisions on the basis of bang-for-buck. FreeBSD is consistently
underperforming on benchmarks. And regardless of real-world similarity,
the contrived benchmarks are the best that is used.
If clang (v3.4.1 on 10.3 Stable) reall
Hi,
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:21:01 +1000
Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 19/08/2016 9:34 AM, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >
> > I am sure that some know of this site:
> >
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4
> >
> > I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As I do
On 19/08/2016 9:34 AM, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sure that some know of this site:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4
>
> I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As I do not have 11 on my
> machines, a stupid question. Are there still some
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:34:22AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sure that some know of this site:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4
>
> I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As I do not have 11 on my
> machines, a stupid question. A
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:50:16 +0300
Sami Halabi wrote:
> At the bottom of the article there is link to the source benchmark
> site. From a quick glance the benchmarks made not with the same
> hardware for all. Phoronix is sort of anti-bsd site.. i won't count
> on the truth of the data they p
Hi,
At the bottom of the article there is link to the source benchmark site.
From a quick glance the benchmarks made not with the same hardware for all.
Phoronix is sort of anti-bsd site.. i won't count on the truth of the data
they present.
Sami
בתאריך 19 באוג׳ 2016 02:34 AM, "Erich Dollansky"
Hi,
I am sure that some know of this site:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2bsd-7linux-bench&num=4
I wonder about the results for FreeBSD. As I do not have 11 on my
machines, a stupid question. Are there still some debugging aids
enabled in 11?
I know that some of the results
41 matches
Mail list logo
