From: | Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: News on Clang |
Date: | 2011-06-24 18:53:32 |
Message-ID: | 4E04DD2C.80804@xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2011-06-25 00:02, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> At a large presentation that I and other PG community members were
> present at during FOSDEM, Postgres was specifically cited as an
> example of a medium-sized C program that had considerably improved
> compile times on Clang. While I was obviously unable to reproduce the
> very impressive compile-time numbers claimed (at -O0), I still think
> that Clang has a lot of promise. Here are the slides from that
> presentation:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/48921683/LLVM-Clang-Advancing-Compiler-Technology
I notice that the slide about compilation speed on postgres compares
only front-end speeds between gcc and clang, not the speeds for
optimization and code generation. That may explain why the difference
is more pronounced on the slide than it is for a real build.
By the way, I was amazed to see such a young compiler build libpqxx with
no other problems than a few justified warnings or errors that gcc
hadn't issued. And that's C++, which is a lot harder than C! The
output was also far more helpful than gcc's. IIRC I found clang just
slightly faster than gcc on a full configure/build/test.
Jeroen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-06-24 19:01:36 | Re: Optimizing pg_trgm makesign() (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build) |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-06-24 18:47:46 | Re: Deriving release notes from git commit messages |