4 ms·
Some points that appear to come out of the data: tcc (tiny c compiler) appears to be really good - it scores very well in both compilation time and execution s
by NickPollard 16y ago
Some points that appear to come out of the data:
tcc (tiny c compiler) appears to be really good - it scores very well in both compilation time and execution speed
open64 (added in second batch of tests) also appears very good, for the same reasons
clang is quite slow.
Programs compiled with gcc -O2 often run faster than with -O3.
- pieter 16y agoI think you're referring to another benchmark. AFAICS, this one doesn't test clang or tcc.
- NickPollard 16y agoFrom the main article link I clicked through to the forum thread[1] where the tester posted his benchmarks. There's more than one there as he progressively tested different compilers and different setups; I looked at the first 2-3. [1] http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?29090-CompilerDeathMatch-surprising-results http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?29090-CompilerDeat...
- dialtone 16y agoThe forum thread on page 3[1] however reads: side-by-side comparisons do however indicate that Clang performed as good or better than ICC or GCC when -O2 is used! And through the link by yread you can see that clang really performs very well overall. [1]: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?29090-CompilerDeathMatch-surprising-results/page3 http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?29090-CompilerDeat...
- sedachv 16y agotcc is seriously awesome. Read the source - this is how C compilers should be written. It can add bounds checking to your programs. It's small enough to fit into a library you can use for dynamic code generation. IMO tcc with support for more architectures is just as viable an alternative to gcc as clang is.