I assume the clang binary was an optimized "release" build? snaroff
On Dec 22, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > I decided to measure clang's performance by compiling bzip2. > > bzip2 is available from http://www.bzip.org/ > > Makefile used for benchmark is here: > http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/devel/llvm/Makefile.bzip2 > > Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 > Debian GNU/Linux Sid up-to-date 2007-12-23 > bzip2 1.0.4 > > LLVM and clang SVN r45330 Release > GCC (Debian 4.2.2-4) > tcc (0.9.24) > > Result (Minimum of 3): > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/clang$ tar zxf src/bzip2-1.0.4.tar.gz > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/clang$ cp make/Makefile.bzip2 bzip2-1.0.4/Makefile > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/clang$ cd bzip2-1.0.4 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/clang/bzip2-1.0.4$ make -s > > GCC: real 0.613s user 0.556s sys 0.052s > tcc: real 0.046s user 0.028s sys 0.012s > GCC -S: real 0.555s user 0.488s sys 0.052s > clang: real 0.298s user 0.248s sys 0.040s > clang+llvm-as: real 0.636s user 0.576s sys 0.048s > > Analysis: > > clang -emit-llvm is about twice faster than gcc -S. > tcc has an internal assembler. > > clang+llvm-as is a bit slower than gcc. > clang+llvm-as spent about half the time in assembler. > gcc spent less than 10% time in assembler. > tcc is more than ten times faster than clang or gcc. > > -- > Seo Sanghyeon > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
