Thanks, guys. I checked out tags/RELEASE_380/final and compiled that in
Release mode with assertions off, and verified that the resulting binaries
were "optimized" (see clang-tidy output below). Still runs about 33%
slower. But, I'm going to chalk this up to a older and probably stripped
down versi
Yeah, not sure, sorry - I don't often do performance measurements of Clang.
Don's advice is probably about right.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:29 AM, jps...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Don and David, just wanted to see if you guys had any quick thoughts on
> any of this before I just resign to live with
The svn version is under heavy development, so there are no guarantees that
a particular revision will even compile and/or pass the tests, much less be
suitable for any particular purpose.
If you need more than that, I'd suggest you stick to either apple's
version, or an official release.
I live
Hi Don and David, just wanted to see if you guys had any quick thoughts on
any of this before I just resign to live with a 35% slower clang than I'm
used to (it's possible that the previous version from Xcode is much slimmed
down or otherwise very carefully tuned in some way).
Thank you,
Jim
On F
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:12 PM, jps...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> David and all, a couple more questions. I stumbled upon
>> http://llvm.org/docs/Packaging.html and see a few other options. For a
>> typical clang build where I am not hac
Got it -- thanks!
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:25 AM, jps...@gmail.com
> via cfe-users <
> cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi, I recently installed "Release" clang (svn r263305) from source on my
>> OSX machine, and it's compiling a
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM, jps...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:12 PM, jps...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> David and all, a couple more questions. I stumbled upon
>>> http://llvm.org/docs/Packaging.html and
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:25 AM, jps...@gmail.com via cfe-users <
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi, I recently installed "Release" clang (svn r263305) from source on my
> OSX machine, and it's compiling a 20 file C++ program about 50% slower than
> the natively installed clang 3.7 (that came
It looks like you are rerunning cmake without first removing the cache,
CMakeCache.txt. Since the option () command that sets
LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS didn't include FORCE, the previous cached value is
preserved.
Therefore, I'd recommend always removing the cache -- I actually blow away
the entire
Hi, I recently installed "Release" clang (svn r263305) from source on my
OSX machine, and it's compiling a 20 file C++ program about 50% slower than
the natively installed clang 3.7 (that came with xcode, I believe, although
I don't use xcode). I currently have both sets of tools installed and am
a
David and all, a couple more questions. I stumbled upon
http://llvm.org/docs/Packaging.html and see a few other options. For a
typical clang build where I am not hacking on clang, but I do want good
error messages for debugging my programs, which options are recommended
[1]? It seems like I should
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:12 PM, jps...@gmail.com wrote:
> David and all, a couple more questions. I stumbled upon
> http://llvm.org/docs/Packaging.html and see a few other options. For a
> typical clang build where I am not hacking on clang, but I do want good
> error messages for debugging my
David and Don, thanks for your tips. We're making progress as the new clang
is only about 35% slower instead of 50% slower, but not quite at parity
yet. Here's what I did:
1. deleted everything and started over, as Don suggested (I just checked
out the source code from scratch again)
2. configure
13 matches
Mail list logo
