[Simh] Compiler differences

[Clem Cole]

Is there a reasonable benchmark - moral equivalent of running the 741
op-amp thru spice - Say a VAX under BSDx or VMS running some defined load?


Also have you ever tried the DEC^h^h^hIntel C compiler on an x86 or
INTEL*64 target (Linux, Winders, or OS X).

Clem

On Friday, May 27, 2016, Mark Pizzolato <Mark at infocomm.com> wrote:

> My observations are that clang does indeed compile faster than gcc,
>
> however that doesn’t say much about how fast the compiled results
>
> actually run.
>
>
>
> If you’re only compiling a single simulator (which most users are
>
> probably interested in) the compile time difference isn’t enough
>
> to worry about.
>
>
>
> When changes to simulators are made, compiling with both gcc
>
> and clang are used since these compilers tend to detect different
>
> errors.
>
>
>
> -        Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* Simh [mailto:simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com');>] *On
> Behalf Of *Kevin Handy
> *Sent:* Friday, May 27, 2016 12:04 PM
> *To:* simh at trailing-edge.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','simh at trailing-edge.com');>
> *Subject:* [Simh] Compiler differences
>
>
>
> Has anyone done a comparison (benchmarks) between simh emulators compiled
> with g++ verses clang?
>
> clang seems to me to run quite a bit faster than gcc, but I haven't run
> any actual comparisons between the two so it is completely subjective.
>
> A full 'make' seems to build faster with clang than gcc.
>
> Just curious. I recently noticed bthe clang stuff in the makefile, so I
> thought I'd try it out.
>


-- 
Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/attachments/20160527/14f9ebaa/attachment-0001.html>