4 ms·
I've tried alpine's gcc before and it was about 50% slower to compile a bunch of packages. That said, if you compile llvm with MinSize/-Os on glibc distro's it
by stabbles 5y ago
I've tried alpine's gcc before and it was about 50% slower to compile a bunch of packages. That said, if you compile llvm with MinSize/-Os on glibc distro's it runs 50% slower too, so it's unclear if slowdown is due to musl libc or rather that they optimize for size instead of performance.
- marcan_42 5y agoCompiling is CPU-bound and doesn't really bottleneck on anything that libc is involved with other than the allocator, so unless musl's allocator is comically slower than glib's, chances are it's just -Os.
- nicoburns 5y agoI believe musl’s allocator is known for being pretty poor.
- ghotli 5y agomusl-1.2.1.tar.gz (sig) - August 4, 2020 This release features the new "mallocng" malloc implementation, replacing musl's original dlmalloc-like allocator that suffered from fundamental design problems. https://inbox.vuxu.org/musl/20200518194204.GG21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx/ https://inbox.vuxu.org/musl/20200518194204.GG21576@brightrai... Pretty good writeup from the author https://musl.libc.org/releases.html https://musl.libc.org/releases.html Rest of the detail in the actual changelog is worth reviewing too
- nicoburns 5y agoSounds like my information is out of date!
- Johnnynator 5y agoThis is pretty much -Os. Void Linux provides -O2 builds of GCC for both musl and glibc with a negligible performance difference. I have not benchmarked it lately, but it is clearly below 10%.