New Freecell Solver gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Nadav,

On Sunday 18 Jul 2010 10:03:32 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010, Shlomi Fish wrote about "New Freecell Solver gcc-4.5.0 
vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> > On the other hand, with gcc-4.5.0 with "-flto" and "-fwhole-program"
> > Freecell Solver ran at 85.1303749084473 seconds.
> > 
> > I admit that I ran the gcc benchmark with a good renice and only in the
> > virtual console, while running the LLVM/clang benchmark without a renice
> > and in KDE and Compiz, but it still cannot explain the dramatic
> > difference.
> 
> Two nitpicks:
> 
> 1. Instead of admitting to not running the two benchmarks in the same
>    conditions, can't you spare another 85 seconds (!) and run one of them
>    again?

Yes, I can. I'm on to it, which will take a little longer because I've deleted 
the svn checkout of LLVM today before I read your E-mail.

> 
> 2. Do you really think that your measurements are accurate down to the
>    individual picosecond? :-)

No, I don't. But that's what I copy and paste from my timing program which is 
using gettimeofday() and that's what I get after being processed with a Perl 
script.

> 
> Anyway, I guess that in any case it shows that gcc has nothing to be
> ashamed of.

Well, at least not in comparison to clang and LLVM. Reportedly, gcc does not 
yield as good results as, say, Intel's icc. (But see:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/1320202&tid=142&tid=118&tid=123 
).

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Stop Using MSIE - http://www.shlomifish.org/no-ie/

God considered inflicting XSLT as the tenth plague of Egypt, but then
decided against it because he thought it would be too evil.

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .