Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

Hi Stephan, On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:35:00PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > Does > > "Update for current master and Clang binaries" cover your needs there? Yes, indeed. Thanks, Miklos

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On 26/11/2021 09:27, Miklos Vajna wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:58:12AM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: There's the horribly outdated that Ilmari already mentioned, But setting up LLVM/Clang (which should only be necessary if you w

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On Monday 22 of November 2021, Arnaud Versini wrote: > I hope this could be an idea of improvement ! Next crazy test I would like > to do is between MSVC and clang on windows ! But it seems harder ! In case you still struggle with this, I made some fixes a couple of days back and updated https:/

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

Hi everyone, I just pushed my autogen files on github : https://github.com/ArnaudVERSINI/LibreOffice_autogens Thanks Le lun. 22 nov. 2021 à 17:28, Arnaud Versini a écrit : > Hi everyone, > > I just tested libreoffice performance between GCC + gold + libstdc++, > clang + lld + libstdc++ and cla

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

Hi Michael, FYI libEngine12 with gcc on my machine is 41MiB with clang and 120 with gcc, not sure this is normal Le mar. 23 nov. 2021 à 16:11, Michael Meeks a écrit : > Hi Arnaud, > > On 22/11/2021 16:28, Arnaud Versini wrote: > > I just tested libreoffice performance between GCC + gold + libst

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On Friday 26 of November 2021, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:58:12AM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > > There's the horribly outdated > > that Ilmari > > already mentioned, But setting up LLVM/Clang (which should only

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

Hi Stephan, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:58:12AM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > There's the horribly outdated > that Ilmari > already mentioned, But setting up LLVM/Clang (which should only be > necessary if you want to --enable-compile

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On Tuesday 23 of November 2021, Luboš Luňák wrote: > > > OpenSUSE 7.2Clang + libc++ Clang + std Gcc + std > > > Run 1 50,92304527545,45644158745,87827528749,487550577 > > Do you have more tests than this one? With the data you've provided that's > good enough as an indic

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On 23/11/2021 17:11, Luboš Luňák wrote: On Tuesday 23 of November 2021, Michael Meeks wrote: On 22/11/2021 16:28, Arnaud Versini wrote: There is no significant difference between both clang builds (changing lib C++ from libstdc++ to libc++) but gcc is slower than clang. Of course all builds don

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

Hi Stephan, Sorry i didn't wrote all explanation yet, it's execution time in seconds to convert the ODT standart from odt to pdf, I know that's not a complete performance test but i will add more test. I didn' measure build time, i guess clang is better but not sure and that's not what i was chec

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On 22/11/2021 17:28, Arnaud Versini wrote: I just tested libreoffice performance between GCC + gold + libstdc++, clang + lld + libstdc++ and clang + lld + libc++ and noticed that gcc builds are slower (at least in this case). I will write a blog article with all the process to reproduce but sma

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On Tuesday 23 of November 2021, Mike Kaganski wrote: > The only thing I would love to note is that besides performance, there's > also usability of development tools that matters. If changing to Clang > as compiler on Windows would mean we can't use Visual Studio's debugger > (or its use would be l

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 17:11 +0100, Luboš Luňák wrote: > > > >  We don't use -Os, at least my local optimized build doesn't. A bunch > of solenv/gbuild/platform files do set it, but it doesn't get selected > here. >  And according to logs those -Os come from at least 10 years ago, so if > the ide

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On 23.11.2021 18.11, Luboš Luňák wrote: On Tuesday 23 of November 2021, Michael Meeks wrote: On 22/11/2021 16:28, Arnaud Versini wrote: I hope this could be an idea of improvement ! Next crazy test I would like to do is between MSVC and clang on windows ! But it seems harder ! Stephan Bergm

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On 23.11.2021 18:11, Michael Meeks wrote: On 22/11/2021 16:28, Arnaud Versini wrote: Next crazy test I would like to do is between MSVC and clang on windows ! But it seems harder ! Ah - now that would be lovely being able to use the same compiler everywhere =) would be really interesting

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

On Tuesday 23 of November 2021, Michael Meeks wrote: > On 22/11/2021 16:28, Arnaud Versini wrote: > > There is no > > significant difference between both clang builds (changing lib C++ from > > libstdc++ to libc++) but gcc is slower than clang. Of course all builds > > don't use system libraries in

Re: clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

Hi Arnaud, On 22/11/2021 16:28, Arnaud Versini wrote: I just tested libreoffice performance between GCC + gold + libstdc++, clang + lld + libstdc++ and clang + lld + libc++ and noticed that gcc builds are slower (at least in this case). That sounds like an interesting result; thanks f

clang vs gcc build performance (executable not build time)

Hi everyone, I just tested libreoffice performance between GCC + gold + libstdc++, clang + lld + libstdc++ and clang + lld + libc++ and noticed that gcc builds are slower (at least in this case). I will write a blog article with all the process to reproduce but small version, it just converts open