On 2011-04-02 00:20, Michael Hope wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:50 AM,<omalleys@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Did anyone ever get llvm/clang working? >> >> It -says- it is fast, good optimization, faster binaries, aimed at >> generating better errors, and has good tools for debugging. :) the >> darwin-arm (and x86 ports are production quality. >> There isn't support for EABI or< armv6 in the ARM-backend yet. > I'm having a bit of a look at this for Linaro at the moment. LLVM is > quite respectable, and generates code that is slower than GCC but > generally in the same ballpark. Of the three benchmarks I've tried, > two took 8 % longer to run on an A9 and pybench took more like 40 % > longer to run. pybench is sensitive to having a good inner loop > though. > > -- Michael > _______________________________________________ > arm mailing list > arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm Hi Michael! For what I know, LLVM defaults to ARMv4t code generation unless it gets told that it are allowed to use newer code generation. This llvm bug tracked how llvm and clang implemented X86 cpu feature autodetection code to make clang generate the best code available for any given host when using -march=native. http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5389 I have added an initial cpu features auto-detection code for ARM to that bug-report for the LLVM part. Do you get better performance on your A9 tests when running clang with clang -mcpu=generic -mattr=+neon,-thumb2,+v6,+vfp2 ? Cheers Xerxes _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
