Damian McGuckin wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Marc Espie wrote:
> > Apparently, it seems that lld might be better behaved than binutils
> > ld in *some* respects like speed and memory consumption in *some*
> > cases...
> >
> > we'll see.
>
> Doesn't Clang have superior (and integrated) static ana
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Marc Espie wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:14:24PM +0200, Heiko wrote:
Thank you for the info. So you expect a lower time in future.
If we eventually remove gcc 4.2.1, yes, the time will go down from
clang+gcc to clang without gcc :)
Apparently, it seems that lld might
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:46:00PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2017-04-20, Heiko wrote:
>
> > So I guess the main advantage is the license?
> > Or is clang technically (binaries, debug) better?
>
> OpenBSD does not live in a bubble. If it did, we could still be
> using gcc 2.95. Bu
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:14:24PM +0200, Heiko wrote:
> Thank you for the info. So you expect a lower time in future.
If we eventually remove gcc 4.2.1, yes, the time will go down from
clang+gcc to clang without gcc :)
Apparently, it seems that lld might be better behaved than binutils ld
in *so
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:31:47PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2017-04-19, Heiko wrote:
>
> > I'm using current on amd64 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz,
> > 3411.91 MHz)
> >
> > I noticed that with clang it needs 109 minutes for "make build" and
> > before with gcc 32 minute
Thank you for the info. So you expect a lower time in future.
Am 20.04.17 um 21:31 schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
> The exact numbers are a bit odd, but generally speaking, yes, adding
> clang has substantially increased the build time. I see about a
> doubling on Xeon E3-12xx-based machines for m
Please dont get me wrong. I dont want to start any compiler wars.
I only was worried about the compile time.
Am 20.04.17 um 20:50 schrieb Karel Gardas:
> IMHO very unfair comparison and you should really wait till OpenBSD
> system/core is build with Clang and GCC 4.2.1 is removed from the
> build
On 2017-04-20, Heiko wrote:
> So I guess the main advantage is the license?
> Or is clang technically (binaries, debug) better?
OpenBSD does not live in a bubble. If it did, we could still be
using gcc 2.95. But it turns out people, including OpenBSD developers,
want to run third-party softwar
On 2017-04-19, Heiko wrote:
> I'm using current on amd64 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz,
> 3411.91 MHz)
>
> I noticed that with clang it needs 109 minutes for "make build" and
> before with gcc 32 minutes.
Not sure what you mean by "performance" in the subject. We're not
building anyt
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Heiko wrote:
> Hello Misc,
>
> I'm using current on amd64 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz,
> 3411.91 MHz)
>
> I noticed that with clang it needs 109 minutes for "make build" and
> before with gcc 32 minutes.
>
> Is this a normal behavior?
This is entirely
Thank you.
Am 20.04.17 um 03:55 schrieb Michael McConville:
> An email from Miod that gets cited often:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2
> I was not aware that the difference is 340%.
>
> So I guess the main advantage is the license?
No.
> Or is clang technically (binaries, debug) better?
No.
Basically, this cannot be oversimplified by 1 line questions followed
by 1 line answers.
I was not aware that the difference is 340%.
So I guess the main advantage is the license?
Or is clang technically (binaries, debug) better?
Am 20.04.17 um 03:42 schrieb Theo de Raadt:
>> I'm using current on amd64 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz,
>> 3411.91 MHz)
>>
>> I noticed that wit
Heiko wrote:
> I noticed that with clang it needs 109 minutes for "make build" and
> before with gcc 32 minutes.
>
> Is this a normal behavior?
An email from Miod that gets cited often:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2
> I'm using current on amd64 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz,
> 3411.91 MHz)
>
> I noticed that with clang it needs 109 minutes for "make build" and
> before with gcc 32 minutes.
>
> Is this a normal behavior?
For sure. Why the surprise?
Hello Misc,
I'm using current on amd64 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz,
3411.91 MHz)
I noticed that with clang it needs 109 minutes for "make build" and
before with gcc 32 minutes.
Is this a normal behavior?
Best,
Heiko
16 matches
Mail list logo
