On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>> --- >>> compiler | compile+link time | test suite run time | binary size >>> gcc 4.1 | 17s | 1.9s | 43KB >>> clang+llvm | 1m 13s | 1.4s | 188KB >>> --- >>> >>> 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? > > no, it was a debug build. With a release build of llvm, it takes > only 10 > seconds to build pcre! It's even faster than gcc 4.1 :) > Of course this could still be better because of the overhead of the > ccc > script. >
Much better...:-) I'd be surprised if ccc is introducing much overhead. The best way to know is to measure. If you are running on Mac OS X, Shark is a wonderful performance analysis tool to tell us exactly where the overhead is. > >>> P.S.2.: why isn't LLVM deployed to replace gcc? isn't it capable >>> to act >>> as a >>> drop-in replacement for gcc with the gcc front-end (for now)? > > Noone tackle this question.. My question is for real: can llvm > already be > used as a drop-in replacement of gcc or not? e.g. can I already > rebuild my > gentoo system (including the kernel) with llvm? :) > Chris is in the best position to answer your question (which is why I didn't respond to it). > > Nuno > > P.S.: the clang build is currently broken because of a commit to > LLVM's > ADT/StringMap.h. > Good catch! Hopefully this will be fixed soon... snaroff > _______________________________________________ > 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
