On 02/23/2012 05:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:18:34AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Somewhat relevant here:
>
> http://clang.debian.net/
>
> Debian's attempt to recompile the whole distro with clang, and a good
> summary of the problems, although no analysis of performance so far.
Problems include the fact
Somewhat relevant here:
http://clang.debian.net/
Debian's attempt to recompile the whole distro with clang, and a good
summary of the problems, although no analysis of performance so far.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top'
On 02/23/2012 05:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
> >>On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>>For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
>
On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
the spec files to request those extra flags, for PGO it really requires
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
> >the spec files to request those extra flags, for PGO it really requires
> >some work from the packager (but e.g.
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in
the spec files to request those extra flags, for PGO it really requires
some work from the packager (but e.g. bash/grep/awk, perhaps perl/python
etc. would definitely improve, gcc
On 02/16/2012 10:37 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:22:03AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> >Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
> > and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on t
On 02/15/2012 11:52 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Not quite. LLVM can be used to build the kernel
No, that is simply not true. Factually incorrect.
I have been working on building the kernel with LLVM, with many changes
submitted (merged over a year ago), but LLVM still needs several obscure
c
On 02/16/2012 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
GCC has a big community of very dedicated people. LLVM has no such
community. So IMHO GCC will be more high quality compiler than LLVM until
LLVM gets such community.
That can't be expec
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:12:06AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > The another usual mistake when people compare speed of GCC and LLVM
> > is to use -O2 for the both compilers. But the true is that -O1 of
> > GCC is -O2 of LLVM with the point of code generation quality. The
> > compiler speed o
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov (vmaka...@redhat.com) said:
>> >Since I was a bit (intentionally) curt and dismissive in my other
>> >response in this thread, I'll add some anecdata here. I have actually
>> >tried building xserver with clang and running
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vladimir Makarov
> wrote:
>> GCC has a big community of very dedicated people. LLVM has no such
>> community. So IMHO GCC will be more high quality compiler than LLVM until
>> LLVM gets such community.
Vladimir Makarov (vmaka...@redhat.com) said:
> >Since I was a bit (intentionally) curt and dismissive in my other
> >response in this thread, I'll add some anecdata here. I have actually
> >tried building xserver with clang and running the standard set of
> >microbenchmarks. I found one relevant
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> GCC has a big community of very dedicated people. LLVM has no such
> community. So IMHO GCC will be more high quality compiler than LLVM until
> LLVM gets such community.
>
That can't be expected to continue now that there are many emp
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:22:03AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
> > and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
> > unless linus drops gcc a
On 02/16/2012 10:02 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
unl
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
> > and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
> > unless linus drops gcc as well, we'l
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:56:59AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> It's very unfortunate that this high standard of requirements for
> disruptive changes in Fedora wasn't properly applied to some of the
> recent disruptive changes. Particularly the very recent unnamed
> disruptive change in Fedora 1
Rahul Sundaram writes:
Considering the recent changes that Apple has been making to CUPS, I
think it is more than a pure technical choice.
That's very obvious. Apple does not like GPL.
pgpShpX5VBeIf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:22:51AM +0100, jonathan wrote:
>> Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
>> IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
>> https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
>>
>>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:22:51AM +0100, jonathan wrote:
> Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
> IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
> https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
>
> It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for s
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
> > and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
> > unless linus drops gcc as well, we'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/16/2012 01:22 AM, jonathan wrote:
> Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest
> apple IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
> https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
>
> It will be great to know if
On 02/16/2012 10:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> Not to mention that the kernel devs use gcc to compile the kernel -
> and it most certainly puts a lot of pressure on the compiler. I suspect
> unless linus drops gcc as well, we'll at a minimum need to keep it to
> build the kernel itself.
Not
On 02/15/2012 10:38 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We're already building at least one package (hfsplus-tools) with llvm
> because it relies on non-standard C extensions that gcc doesn't support,
> and I believe the current software rasteriser in mesa depends on it. In
> terms of it being the gen
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:22:51AM +0100, jonathan wrote:
> Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
> IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
> https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
>
> It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for s
On 2/15/12 7:22 PM, jonathan wrote:
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for several
important linux package
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM, jonathan wrote:
> Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
> IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
> https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
>
> It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for several
>
Apple move step by step to LLVM and stop to use gcc. The latest apple
IDE (Xcode) will not ship gcc but llvm.
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html
It will be great to know if llvm is ready to do same for several
important linux package.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.
31 matches
Mail list logo
