Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 19:10 UTC, submitted by tyrione
General Development LLVM 2.8 has been released. The release notes describe this new, ehm, release in greater detail, so head on over and give it a read.
Thread beginning with comment 444484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: GCC > LLVM
by 0brad0 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 07:01 UTC in reply to "GCC > LLVM"
0brad0
Member since:
2007-05-05

GCC is still the best.


GCC is a slow compiler, especially with C++ and it's getting slower with each new release. It is a memory pig. Error messages/reporting is very poor. The code is overly complex and hard for people to hack on. The license especially with the newer versions is unacceptable for a lot of projects.

LLVM is much better in all of these areas.

GCC also does not generate the best code on pretty
much any architecture and on more than enough of the architecures it supports it generates really poor code.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: GCC > LLVM
by RshPL on Fri 8th Oct 2010 11:09 in reply to "RE: GCC > LLVM"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13


GCC also does not generate the best code on pretty
much any architecture and on more than enough of the architecures it supports it generates really poor code.

Can you somehow back up this claim?

From my experiences Mingw-GCC on Windows with O3 generates MUCH faster code than MSVC (dunno about 2010 though). I've done some numeric computations benchmarks.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: GCC > LLVM
by Valhalla on Fri 8th Oct 2010 20:06 in reply to "RE: GCC > LLVM"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

and it's getting slower with each new release.

Ehh? Not nearly so, I really want to think this is not about you being a BSD fan and gcc being GPL, please say it's not so.

Error messages/reporting is very poor.

Here's where I kind of agree with you, except that I don't think it's 'very poor' but rather that llvm's is 'very good', as in best of class. It's one of the things I personally would want the gcc devs to work on, but although there are plans on this ( http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Diagnostics?action=fullsearch&contex... ) the corporations that to a large extent directs gcc's focus (ibm, red hat, novell etc) are obviously prioritizing optimizations as it stands with the focus of gcc 4.6 being that of polyhedral optimizations. Nothing wrong with that, certainly there's alot of performance to be had, as shown by pocc for example: http://www-roc.inria.fr/~pouchet/software/pocc/ but again I'd rather prefer it if they put the optimizations aside for a whlie and worked on the diagnostics.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: GCC > LLVM
by 0brad0 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 23:20 in reply to "RE[2]: GCC > LLVM"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Ehh? Not nearly so, I really want to think this is not about you being a BSD fan and gcc being GPL, please say it's not so.


Not at all. Its called doing actual real world benchmarks. Building kernel and userland and finding each release is slower.

Reply Parent Score: 1