I am trying to get started with the new, "open," Clang-based XLC compiler. I am stunned at how noticeably slower it is than the legacy C compiler. I wasn't looking to benchmark -- the slow compile times just jumped out at me.
Is this to be expected? I wish I had numbers for exactly the same source code but there are different userids involved and it's a little complicated. Different options for the two compiles because the option specifications are incompatible. Both modules are fairly vanilla source code written by the same author. Both of the following are on the same machine, the same virtual machine at IBM Dallas. It's a z16 A01. Compile under the legacy XL C compiler, a C++ compile of a 1886-line source module: 4 seconds elapsed, .36 CPU seconds. Compile under Open XL C compiler, a C++ compile of a 415-line source module: 26 seconds elapsed, 1.32 CPU seconds. Is this what others are seeing? Is this to be expected? IS anyone using the new compiler? Charles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
