This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: incremental compiler project
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>, David Kunsman <dmkunsman at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:18:47 -0600
- Subject: Re: incremental compiler project
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAPVyUPD0eAyAuPOktpjqpY=UKx0t2YEvFQxMUMY2Lv2pwUAjLA at mail dot gmail dot com> <55E87708 dot 7010901 at gmail dot com> <87twrap6c2 dot fsf at tromey dot com> <CAESRpQC6LDfqqc_2AqyQhdvbSXjU4m8SmZcqzCZNvSpn-ofvxw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQkzuk87NhMWugfzFVZeMwBkeuMYx=+2pc-v4F-XqLU9g at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 09/04/2015 10:14 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Which would generally indicate that the front-end and mandatory parts of
the middle/backend are slow for GCC (relatively to clang/llvm), but the
optimizers in GCC are faster.
On 4 September 2015 at 16:57, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez wrote:
Clang++ is much faster yet it is doing more and tracking more data
How much faster these days? In my experience for optimized builds of
large files the difference is not so impressive (for unoptimized
builds clang is definitely much faster).
That wouldn't be a huge surprise given home much time has been spent
trying to keep the optimizers fast.