On Sep 6, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
I tried both llvm-gcc and CLANG. I did not have any trouble
getting them to work for my 64 bit chess program.
I didn't try too hard, but neither is producing executables as fast
as gcc. llvm-gcc is the slowest about 20% slower than gcc and
clang is only a little slower than gcc.
Since I developed with gcc it is very likely that the program and
the way I write code is "tuned" to work well with gcc.
Perhaps I will try this with the GO program, which is not heavily
optimized.
I grabbed and compiled the latest llvm and clang - so I cannot be
accused of using outdated versions. And I didn't use the debug
versions either.
But I will keep my eye on llvm and clang.
From what I've seen, LLVM should be comparable to gcc or faster. Of
course whenever anyone publishes this kind of comparison you have to
wonder how biased they are. And supposedly compile-times are several
times faster than gcc, which doesn't matter for the final product of
course but is nice during development.
Maybe it would be interesting to compile a ref-bot on the Mac and see
how it compares. Would Fuego compile on a Mac with XCode? That might
provide even more a real-world comparison.
From what I've read so far it sounds like Objective C 2.0 offers many
of the things I like about Java. And then it offers a few niceties
Java doesn't offer (yet). It also claims a seamless connection to C-
code. Java and C# can call into C-code, but doing it right is so much
work you'd think twice before doing it unless you have a substantial
library that stands on its own. If it's really seamless there's little
that stops you from sticking in a few small routines in plain C that
are optimized to the bone.
Mark
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
