3 ms·
Please actually read my earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090097 Here, let me quote it for yo
by Pacabel 12y ago
Please actually read my earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090097
Here, let me quote it for you: "With optimizations disabled, I tend to see a 30% to 40% reduction in compilation time when using LLVM/Clang instead of recent releases of GCC."
Do you see the first part? You know, the part that goes "With optimizations disabled"? Do you see it?
I'm talking about running both LLVM/Clang and GCC with optimizations disabled. -O0. Even with optimizations disabled, GCC is still significantly slower than LLVM/Clang on all of the various C++ code bases that I have tried it with, and especially those that I work with on a daily basis.
How are we supposed to have a discussion if you aren't actually reading what was written earlier?
- nullc 12y ago> Do you see it? Apparently not. I missed it in part because it's completely at odds with my experience. Interesting, may be some codebase difference. On a codebase I work on daily -O0 gcc 4.8.2 is about 5x faster than -O0 clang (3.5-198803), 6.078 seconds vs 33.069 seconds, no cacche or anything obviously in the way.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]