3 ms·
The Cranelift website does have that quote, but the linked paper says > The resulting code performs on average 14% better than LLVM -O0, 22% slower than LLVM -
by azakai 1y ago
The Cranelift website does have that quote, but the linked paper says
> The resulting code performs on average 14% better than LLVM -O0, 22% slower than LLVM -O1, 25% slower than LLVM -O2, and 24% slower than LLVM -O3
So it is more like 24% slower, not 14%. Perhaps a typo (24/14), or they got the direction mixed up (it is +14 vs -24), or I'm reading that wrong?
Regardless, those numbers are on a particular set of database benchmarks (TPC-H), and I wouldn't read too much into them.
- mmastrac 1y agoInteresting. Thanks for those numbers. I'd be interested in trying some real-world applications myself.
- dontlaugh 1y agoEven 14% would be unacceptably slow for a system language. I don’t think that means it’s not doable, though.
- goku12 1y agoThe artifact's executions speed doesn't seem to be Cranelift's priority. They're instead focusing on compilation speed and security. Those are still useful in Rust for debug builds at least. That's when we need a quick turnaround time and as much verification as possible.