Makes sense. It would still be good to have numbers to verify... Since GCC doesn't do IPO by default, it would be useful to have an "apples to apples" comparison.
I want to make sure clang stays competitive (in terms of compile time)... snaroff On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > 2008/1/30, Steve Naroff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Jan 30, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>> Although llvm is much slower at compiling (the linking part seems >>> to be >>> really slow due to the -O2 optimizations), the binary produced is >>> much >>> faster :) >> >> This doesn't makes sense to me. Are you using an optimized "release" >> version of clang? >> >> If so, can you compile/measure with -fsyntax-only? > > I believe all time is spent in "llvm-ld -O2", which does the > interprocedual optimization IIRC. > > -- > Seo Sanghyeon _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
