Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
"gold standard"?"gold standard"?Posted Apr 27, 2012 10:02 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)In reply to: "gold standard"? by davide.del.vento Parent article: LFCS 2012: LLVM and Linux
Phew ok, PCC, digital mars, from what I've seen MSVC, Open64 probably more than half the time (though the situations where it wins can be impressive...), I don't think OpenWatcom can really keep up these days...
...and now LLVM.
(Log in to post comments)
"gold standard"? Posted Apr 27, 2012 10:25 UTC (Fri) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]
LLVM is not a compiler.
"gold standard"? Posted Apr 27, 2012 11:49 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> from what I've seen MSVC
It certainly wasn't that way back when gcc 3.4 was the current release. I know because I benchmarked it for my university. MSCC both compiled faster and produced faster binaries, and by a good margin.
I think that it's time to redo those benchmarks...
"gold standard"? Posted May 2, 2012 11:37 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Uh, OK. My wife wants to thank you for saving me a weekend. Hummmm.
AFAICS, MSVC is still *much* faster compiling than GCC (between two and four times faster). Also, MSVC generated code is smaller and runs faster, but the difference is not as big as it used to be.
"gold standard"? Posted May 13, 2012 10:13 UTC (Sun) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"Also, MSVC generated code is smaller and runs faster, but the difference is not as big as it used to be."
Well no, according the the "average" page gcc 4.6.3 maxes out at "1.18" for runtime while msvc 2010 maxes out at "1.24".
But, y'know, benchmarks and all that...
|
|||||||||||||