On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Which is why i said "It's fine to say compile time performance of the
middle end portions ew may replace should be same or better".
And if you were to look right now, it's actually significantly better in
some cases :(
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.i686/gcc/global-build-secs_elapsed.html
And some more
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/X86/2005-11-01.html
I'm not sure about accuracy, or versions of LLVM used, etc.
No, this is not fair at all. The version you're comparing against is a
debug version of LLVM. Debug versions of LLVM are literally 10x slower or
more than release versions. Further, those compile times are with the
"old llvm gcc", which is not only doing link-time optimization (which your
GCC numbers aren't) it's also writing out a massive text file and reading
it back in at compile-time.
Although promising on some things (as Diego said), LLVM exectue and
compile performance is a mixed bag.
As I mentioned before, the X86 backend does not currently produce stellar
code. The PPC backend is better, and the whole thing is a moot point if
we're going to RTL :)
-Chris
--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/
