Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:47 PM, René J.V. wrote: > On Thursday March 10 2016 14:24:00 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> > CMake does something similar for all 4 built-in presets, so the only way I >> > know to control the exact compiler flags is to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to a >> >

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thursday March 10 2016 14:24:00 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > CMake does something similar for all 4 built-in presets, so the only way I > > know to control the exact compiler flags is to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to a > > custom value. Debian/Ubuntu do that in their packaging scripts > >

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:26 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > On Thursday March 10 2016 10:13:16 Jack Howarth wrote: > >> A simple test with 'sudo port -d -s build llvm-3.8' reveals that -Os >> is in fact used during the compiles on Intel. This is unsurprising as >> MacPorts

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:26 AM, René J.V. wrote: > On Thursday March 10 2016 10:13:16 Jack Howarth wrote: > >> A simple test with 'sudo port -d -s build llvm-3.8' reveals that -Os >> is in fact used during the compiles on Intel. This is unsurprising as >> MacPorts has

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thursday March 10 2016 10:13:16 Jack Howarth wrote: > A simple test with 'sudo port -d -s build llvm-3.8' reveals that -Os > is in fact used during the compiles on Intel. This is unsurprising as > MacPorts has standardized on -Os. > > CFLAGS='-pipe -Os' > CXXFLAGS='-pipe -Os -std=c++11

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:33 AM, René J.V. wrote: > On Wednesday March 09 2016 20:48:19 Jack Howarth wrote: >>> Why? My understanding is that the optimizations for -Os are equivalent >>> to -O2 with the emphasis on size reduction. The additional >>> optimizations from -O2 to

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Wednesday March 09 2016 20:48:19 Jack Howarth wrote: >> Why? My understanding is that the optimizations for -Os are equivalent >> to -O2 with the emphasis on size reduction. The additional >> optimizations from -O2 to -O3 would seem sufficient to produce a 10% >> execution optimization, no? >

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Wednesday March 09 2016 20:48:19 Jack Howarth wrote: >>> Frankly I'd be surprised if that leads to a 10% performance difference! >> >> Why? My understanding is that the optimizations for -Os are equivalent >> to -O2 with the emphasis on size reduction. The additional >> optimizations from -O2

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:36 PM, René J.V. wrote: >> On Wednesday March 09 2016 18:00:07 Jack Howarth wrote: >> >>> Have you checked to make sure that the installed llvm packages aren't >>>

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:36 PM, René J.V. wrote: > On Wednesday March 09 2016 18:00:07 Jack Howarth wrote: > >> Have you checked to make sure that the installed llvm packages aren't >> built as the +assertions variant? The use of assertions will have a > > Oh yes. With that

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

> On 9 Mar 2016, at 5:08 pm, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > >> On Wednesday March 09 2016 08:41:56 Eric A. Borisch wrote: >> >> FWIW, if compressed with HFS+ compression (afsctool with -f -6 -s 50 >> options, for reference), llvm-3.7 and clang-3.7 combined take 756MB rather >>

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Wednesday March 09 2016 08:41:56 Eric A. Borisch wrote: > FWIW, if compressed with HFS+ compression (afsctool with -f -6 -s 50 > options, for reference), llvm-3.7 and clang-3.7 combined take 756MB rather > than 3.4+ GB. I use a patched portimage.tcl that uses bsdtar from port:libarchive which