http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #6 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-05
09:21:59 UTC ---
I am slightly confused. Are we discussing compile time or test-run-time?
I've just built SPEC 2006 with -fsanitize=address -O2
gcc: r195706
clang: r174324
Measured on Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W3690 @ 3.47GHz
clang gcc
400.perlbench, 1209.00, -1.00, -0.00
401.bzip2, 885.00, 1187.00, 1.34
403.gcc, 739.00, 756.00, 1.02
429.mcf, 602.00, 612.00, 1.02
445.gobmk, 840.00, 1191.00, 1.42
456.hmmer, 1304.00, 1838.00, 1.41
458.sjeng, 923.00, 1326.00, 1.44
462.libquantum, 543.00, 481.00, 0.89
464.h264ref, 1271.00, -1.00, -0.00
471.omnetpp, 631.00, 624.00, 0.99
473.astar, 672.00, 765.00, 1.14
483.xalancbmk, 500.00, 521.00, 1.04
433.milc, 710.00, 629.00, 0.89
444.namd, 637.00, 539.00, 0.85
447.dealII, 650.00, 714.00, 1.10
450.soplex, 389.00, 419.00, 1.08
453.povray, 459.00, 432.00, 0.94
470.lbm, 388.00, 409.00, 1.05
482.sphinx3, 998.00, 1335.00, 1.34
400.perlbench fails with a real asan-ish warning
(clang can use a blacklist file and disables instrumentation for the buggy
function.
See https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/FoundBugs#Spec_CPU_2006
and
https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/AddressSanitizer#Turning_off_instrumentation)
464.h264ref with gcc loops forever, I did not investigate why.
So, on average clang+asan is faster than gcc-asan (up to 40%!),
but in some cases (mostly, FP code) gcc is faster (up to 15%)
