3 ms·
The maintainer of oksh has an interesting comparison[1] between tcc and cproc as it comes to the performance of the generated code on OpenBSD. To be clear, cpro
by mananaysiempre 2y ago
The maintainer of oksh has an interesting comparison[1] between tcc and cproc as it comes to the performance of the generated code on OpenBSD. To be clear, cproc delivers. But tcc beats it, usually significantly, for reasons I can’t even begin to see how to investigate. It actually beats cparser/libfirm in most cases, which just makes no sense. (I ran the benchmarks myself on Linux some months ago; with the versions given in the original post, they reproduce.)
[1] https://briancallahan.net/blog/20211010.html https://briancallahan.net/blog/20211010.html
- cenamus 2y agoThose results are truly strange, tcc on the same level as gcc/clang for all tests? Something's going on
- mananaysiempre 2y agoRight?.. There’s a reason I decided to spend the couple of hours it took to get libfirm to compile. Then again, it’s a shell benchmark, most of it is bound to be syscalls and (nonfancy) parsing, so the space for an optimizing compiler to make a difference is bound to be fairly limited. All the compilers in the test are within 2× of the best one, and CompCert isn’t exactly a speed demon either. I’d love to dig into this, but there are so many layers of stuff I don’t really know where to start.
- fuhsnn 2y agoI tested with tcc, cparser and my own slimcc, the benchmark showed multiple process with htop, so there are some dynamic cpu scaling randomness going on. I saw larger run-to-run differences with the same binary, than with comparing cherry-picked best-run of each, so probably not the best benchmark.