5 ms·
It's still the "de facto" compiler on most flavors of Linux and still tends to produce faster binaries in practice than Clang. That gap, however, continues to n
by alfalfasprout 7y ago
It's still the "de facto" compiler on most flavors of Linux and still tends to produce faster binaries in practice than Clang. That gap, however, continues to narrow.
- CannoloBlahnik 7y agoI always viewed Clang as faster, and perceived GCC as catching up.
- throwaway744678 7y agoClang has faster compilation, but (depending on the actual case) optimized binary built by gcc run faster; as mentioned above, both gaps are narrowing.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoAs of May 2019, Phoronix showed them being roughly equal, with the winner depending on the application. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc9-clang8-hedt&num=3 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc9-cla... We should expect them to both continue to improve. It's not a sure thing that Clang will end up the clear winner.
- eMSF 7y agoThe perception of Apple's Midas Touch has never been dependent on banal things like objective comparisons.
- mratsim 7y agoGCC is bad for anything related to big integer arithmetic or cryptography unfortunately. Something like 20 to 40% slower than Clang. Example of GCC awful codegen on add with carry: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/2h768y https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/2h768y