4 ms·
I understand that. Still, what was meant? C/C++ don't have mechanisms for automatic parallelization, or if there are obscure extensions they are not commonly us
by maaku 10y ago
I understand that. Still, what was meant? C/C++ don't have mechanisms for automatic parallelization, or if there are obscure extensions they are not commonly used. Compilation is usually a single-processor task, with linear speedup obtained by doing multiple compilation units in parallel (make -jN). So in what way can a compiler be "better" for multi-processor / multi-core CPU architectures?
- MereInterest 10y agoI believe that in this context, "more processors" meant "more different models of processors". That is, there exist processors for which gcc can produce binaries and clang cannot produce binaries.
- maaku 10y agoAh ok. More backends.
- groovy2shoes 10y agoWell, support for more target architectures, really. I can easily imagine cases where a compiler could have multiple backends for the same target arch, so the number of backends could be misleading in that regard. For a summary from the OpenBSD perspective, see here: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2