Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2008
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@woobling.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 17:46:15 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > >> But you're also comparing 4.2 with 4.0. What's llvm-gcc like against 4.2? > > Given that no GCC optimizations are performed by llvm-gcc it doesn't > matter that much, but the results are: > > system gcc-4.2 llvmbc > ------ ------- ------ > arith/mixed 100 82 119 > arith/trig 100 88 103 > array/copy 100 96 130 > array/foreach 100 83 134 > array/index 100 96 134 > array/pop 100 98 125 > array/shift 100 95 130 > array/sort-num 100 100 103 > array/sort 100 96 109 > call/0arg 100 81 148 > call/1arg 100 79 133 > call/2arg 100 86 133 > call/9arg 100 89 132 > call/empty 100 67 139 > call/fib 100 87 130 > call/method 100 86 126 > call/wantarray 100 93 125 > hash/copy 100 87 112 > hash/each 100 97 127 > hash/foreach-sort 100 94 106 > hash/foreach 100 85 126 > hash/get 100 76 83 > hash/set 100 82 108 > loop/for-c 100 81 95 > loop/for-range-const 100 113 118 > loop/for-range 100 111 120 > loop/getline 100 94 106 > loop/while-my 100 82 96 > loop/while 100 85 85 > re/const 100 98 99 > re/w 100 106 117 > startup/fewmod 100 102 105 > startup/lotsofsub 100 100 103 > startup/noprog 100 108 104 > string/base64 100 105 115 > string/htmlparser 100 90 104 > string/index-const 100 99 109 > string/index-var 100 84 114 > string/ipol 100 86 83 > string/tr 100 97 96 > > AVERAGE 100 92 115 > I would be curious to see how Intel C++ and Sun Studio on Linux are doing in comparison. Based on my previous smokes, they usually beat the pants off of gcc. Steve Peters steve@fisharerojo.orgThread Previous | Thread Next