Re: [Simh] Compiler differences
There's a VAX benchmark program. I ran it on my last machine and got something in excess of an 8600! I'd be surprised if it isn't around somewhere, but if it isn't then I can upload it. On Fri, 27 May 2016 17:03:18 -0400 Clem Cole wrote: > 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 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:simh-boun...@trailing-edge.com > > ] > > *On Behalf Of *Kevin Handy > > *Sent:* Friday, May 27, 2016 12:04 PM > > *To:* simh@trailing-edge.com > > > > *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. > > > > ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] Compiler differences
Hi Clem, I have in the past when you suggested it. Since you’ve got direct access to that compiler at your finger tips, I’d be glad to hear about any simh build issues you may encounter from time to time. Thanks. - Mark From: Clem Cole [mailto:cl...@ccc.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:03 PM To: Mark Pizzolato Cc: Kevin Handy ; simh@trailing-edge.com Subject: Re: [Simh] Compiler differences 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 mailto:m...@infocomm.com>> 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:simh-boun...@trailing-edge.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Handy Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 12:04 PM To: simh@trailing-edge.com 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 Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] Compiler differences
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 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:simh-boun...@trailing-edge.com > ] *On > Behalf Of *Kevin Handy > *Sent:* Friday, May 27, 2016 12:04 PM > *To:* simh@trailing-edge.com > > *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 Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] Compiler differences
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:simh-boun...@trailing-edge.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Handy Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 12:04 PM To: simh@trailing-edge.com 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. ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] Compiler differences
I have done some informal testing that showed clang to produce slower code than GCC for simh. The difference is perhaps within 5-10%, so not a lot slower, but enough to be easily measurable. It certainly is true, though, that compilation with clang is usually faster than with GCC. -Henry On May 27, 2016 3:04 PM, "Kevin Handy" wrote: > 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. > > > ___ > Simh mailing list > Simh@trailing-edge.com > http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh > ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
[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. ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
