Re:Comparing Parallel Rust and C++
by Someone on Thursday November 07, 2019 @04:12PM
(#21477299)
"Clang was always the worst”
Were you even looking at the same article? :-)
I thought the same as you, until I looked at the results for the "Mid-range laptop CPU with 4 physical cores and 8 hardware threads.”
There, clang does best in multi-core for v4 through v7. That made me think that, possibly, the default set of LLVM optimization transformation passes in clang is (better) optimised for Apple’s main audience: mobile.
Also: why are the fastest run on the “4.3 GHz Mid-range desktop CPU” slower than the equivalent ones on the “3.4 GHz Mid-range laptop CPU”?
Were you even looking at the same article? :-)
I thought the same as you, until I looked at the results for the "Mid-range laptop CPU with 4 physical cores and 8 hardware threads.”
There, clang does best in multi-core for v4 through v7. That made me think that, possibly, the default set of LLVM optimization transformation passes in clang is (better) optimised for Apple’s main audience: mobile.
Also: why are the fastest run on the “4.3 GHz Mid-range desktop CPU” slower than the equivalent ones on the “3.4 GHz Mid-range laptop CPU”?