News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Defending GCC considered futile by darkpore on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @10:12AM (#9027532)
Re:Defending GCC considered futile by berkut on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @10:57AM (#9027921)
As the original author of that benchmark, I should point out that that was LLVM SVN (unreleased) against GCC 4.8 & 4.9 - I couldn't get GCC 5.0 SVN to build, so it's possible 5.0 will be faster again than LLVM in certain situations.

However, I would also say that generally I've found LLVM is now producing faster code than GCC in most code I've tested both compilers with.

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by sanxiyn on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @11:07AM (#9028002)
That is very interesting, because LLVM developers themselves admit LLVM generates slower code than GCC (in average). This is plain if you read LLVM Developers' Meeting talks.

I think it is completely possible that LLVM developers are using wrong benchmarks. Benchmarks are mostly SPEC and some large Google C++ codebases; in some sense both are quite atypical. But then, entire problem is to understand how typical codebases look like.

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by DannyBee on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @11:22AM (#9028100)
I can hopefully settle this (as a developer of both).

Assuming we stick to x86/x64, nowadays (literally, let's say as of January 2015) GCC and LLVM are within the noise for most people on most code (IE 1-2% of each other).

You can certainly find benchmarks were LLVM does badly. Some are important to some people, some aren't. It is harder to find benchmarks where GCC does badly.

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by sanxiyn on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @10:37AM (#9027721)
Yes it does. Did you read my links?

Small benchmarks can go either way, but for large codebase (especially C++) inliner is more important than just about anything else. So GCC wins, because it has better inliner.

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by darkpore on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @10:43AM (#9027770)
Yep - you evidently didn't read mine as 165 k lines of c++ isn't exactly a small benchmark :)

Anecdotal, but I've seen similar improvements over g++ in my code.

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by sanxiyn on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @10:53AM (#9027867)
There are many measures of benchmark sizes. One important measure is size of codes that account for 99% of execution time. If your codebase is a million lines but your hotspot is a thousand lines, benchmark result is sensitive to optimization quirks and in some sense benchmark is small.

More on this idea here: http://blog.pyston.org/2014/12/05/python-benchmark-sizes/

Re:Defending GCC considered futile by phkahler on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @10:28AM (#9027660)
Why yes, yes it does. There are exceptions of course, you seem to have found one. Here are some others: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc49_com...