"gold standard"?
"gold standard"?
Posted May 2, 2012 8:29 UTC (Wed) by nwmcsween (guest, #62367)In reply to: "gold standard"? by robert_s
Parent article: LFCS 2012: LLVM and Linux
> I'm also not so convinced by any "4% off gcc" claims about LLVM. Phoronix (yes, caveats aside) routinely test LLVM releases and it's common for LLVM to be a good 50% behind gcc
50% on very biased benchmarks that utilize openmp, which isn't supported as of now in clang/llvm.