Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Nov 2012 23:50 UTC, submitted by Joel Dahl
FreeBSD "I've made clang the default on x86 systems. There will probably be a few bumps as we work out the last kinks including a ABI issue for i386 system libraries, but the transition is expected to be fairly smooth for most users."
Thread beginning with comment 541353
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: why?
by ideasman42 on Thu 8th Nov 2012 04:56 UTC in reply to "why?"
ideasman42
Member since:
2007-07-20

clang is really very good compiler, though I think you're right - its a licensing issue, at the moment I wouldn't say clang is a better compiler.

For C, they both do well, for C++, clang is still not 100%.

And on both C/C++ clang misses OpenMP, which may be a big deal if you're using that a lot.

I do benchmarks once in a while and for me - (testing cycles-raytracer), clang is still slower then gcc (5-10%), and has been for over a year.

IMHO the advantage is more with is ability to integrate with IDE's and be used as a library. - clang/python for example is pretty nice, though focused on IDE's rather then giving you access to all info.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: why?
by Lazarus on Thu 8th Nov 2012 05:07 in reply to "RE: why?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

I do benchmarks once in a while and for me - (testing cycles-raytracer), clang is still slower then gcc (5-10%), and has been for over a year.


Are you comparing current (at the time) Clang vs. current (at the time) GCC, or the ancient version of GCC in FreeBSD's base?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: why?
by ideasman42 on Thu 8th Nov 2012 05:12 in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
ideasman42 Member since:
2007-07-20

latest of both, running on arch linux though, attempting to use similar optimization flags where possible.

Edited 2012-11-08 05:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: why?
by zio_tom78 on Thu 8th Nov 2012 09:10 in reply to "RE: why?"
zio_tom78 Member since:
2008-04-10

I agree. Clang provides fantastically clear error messages, expecially when you use templates. But the lack of support for OpenMP is a severe impediment for those like me that do HPC (I am working in a large astrophysical project, and our codes run on machines with 12 cores at least and take hours/days to complete!).

By the way, this is the reason why I removed Mac OS X from my Macbook and replaced it with Ubuntu: to have a reasonably updated version of gcc instead of the very old one bundled with Lion.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: why?
by kwan_e on Thu 8th Nov 2012 09:26 in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

But the lack of support for OpenMP is a severe impediment for those like me that do HPC (I am working in a large astrophysical project, and our codes run on machines with 12 cores at least and take hours/days to complete!).


I don't know if this helps: http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cling

CERN does something with cling and clang and they do HPC stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: why?
by oskeladden on Thu 8th Nov 2012 16:56 in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

By the way, this is the reason why I removed Mac OS X from my Macbook and replaced it with Ubuntu: to have a reasonably updated version of gcc instead of the very old one bundled with Lion.

I don't have much experience with OS X Lion, but couldn't you simply have installed a newer version of GCC? I've not used a Mac as my main work machine for a while, but it used to be possible on Snow Leopard using MacPorts with some tweaking. I certainly had GCC 4.5.x running with OpenMP 3.0 support on my Snow Leopard based machine (like you, I needed it for modelling).

Edited 2012-11-08 16:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1