Is there a reasonable benchmark - moral equivalent of running the 741 op-amp thru spice - Say a VAX under BSDx or VMS running some defined load?
Also have you ever tried the DEC^h^h^hIntel C compiler on an x86 or INTEL*64 target (Linux, Winders, or OS X). Clem On Friday, May 27, 2016, Mark Pizzolato <[email protected]> wrote: > My observations are that clang does indeed compile faster than gcc, > > however that doesn’t say much about how fast the compiled results > > actually run. > > > > If you’re only compiling a single simulator (which most users are > > probably interested in) the compile time difference isn’t enough > > to worry about. > > > > When changes to simulators are made, compiling with both gcc > > and clang are used since these compilers tend to detect different > > errors. > > > > - Mark > > > > *From:* Simh [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On > Behalf Of *Kevin Handy > *Sent:* Friday, May 27, 2016 12:04 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* [Simh] Compiler differences > > > > Has anyone done a comparison (benchmarks) between simh emulators compiled > with g++ verses clang? > > clang seems to me to run quite a bit faster than gcc, but I haven't run > any actual comparisons between the two so it is completely subjective. > > A full 'make' seems to build faster with clang than gcc. > > Just curious. I recently noticed bthe clang stuff in the makefile, so I > thought I'd try it out. > -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
_______________________________________________ Simh mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
