Hi, I cannot answer why, but I can confirm what you have seen. Even on OSX10.9, where the system clang is
MacBookPro ~ > clang -v Apple LLVM version 5.1 (clang-503.0.40) (based on LLVM 3.4svn) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13.3.0 Thread model: posix So I would guess closer to MacPorts clang 3.4 than it is on OSX10.6, build with the system clang is significantly faster than MacPorts… cheers Chris On 5 Jul 2014, at 2:08pm, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote: > In hope it's not completely out of place to discuss this here, but has anyone > else noticed that clang's supposedly better build performance (as opposed to > gcc) is no longer an accurate selling argument, at least for version 3.4? > > Comparing build times of a port I'm working on, KDE's rekonq so mostly C++: > >> port clean rekonq ; time port -v destroot rekonq # uses Apple's gcc-4.2 on >> OS X 10.6.8 > 2:59 total_time >> port clean rekonq ; time port -v destroot rekonq configure.compiler=clang # >> uses Apple's clang-3.0 on OS X 10.6.8 > 1:42 total_time >> port clean rekonq ; time port -v destroot rekonq >> configure.compiler=macports-clang-3.4 > 4:04 total_time >> port clean rekonq ; time port -v destroot rekonq >> configure.compiler=macports-gcc-4.8 > 2:22 total_time > > That's on an i7 with 2 cores x 2 hyperthreads; I'm getting in a bit over 200% > CPU when using 4 concurrent build jobs. > > I haven't yet done a similar comparison under Linux, but could this be due to > how MacPort's llvm & clang are built? > _______________________________________________ > macports-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
