[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] i just can't get over how farging fast tcc is...

From: Christian Jullien
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] i just can't get over how farging fast tcc is...
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:28:33 +0100

Personally, I can’t say that tcc execution speed is close to other C compilers.

Results from my OpenLisp benchmarks (see www.eligis.com)

All tests are run on the same machine.

You can see that TCC (Tiny C Compiler) is always between 3x to 10x slower!!! than gcc and/or VC++.

The "funny" thing is that Lisp compiled code runs slower than interpreter while other C compilers are about twice as fast.

-- Lisp Compiled code to LAP (64bit mode)

GNU GCC 4.x (Mgw) XP64 (Compile) | 1.240

Microsoft C 16.0  XP64 (Compile) | 1.189

Tiny C Compiler   XP64 (Compile) | 10.442

-- Lisp Compiled code to LAP (32bit mode)

GNU GCC 4.x (Mgw) XP   (Compile) | 1.059

Watcom C 1.90     XP   (Compile) | 1.157

Borland C 5.60    XP   (Compile) | 1.216

Microsoft C 16.0  XP   (Compile) | 1.276

Digital Mars 8.52 XP   (Compile) | 1.338

IBM Visual Age C  XP   (Compile) | 1.419

LCC C Compiler    XP   (Compile) | 1.609

Tiny C Compiler   XP   (Compile) | 10.515

-- Lisp interpreted code (64bit mode)

Microsoft C 16.0  XP64 (64 bits) | 1.976

GNU GCC 4.x (Mgw) XP64 (64 bits) | 2.191

Pelles C Compiler XP64 (64 bits) | 2.842

Tiny C Compiler   XP64 (64 bits) | 5.771

-- Lisp interpreted code (32bit mode)

Microsoft C 16.0  XP   (32 bits) | 1.887

GNU GCC 4.x (Mgw) XP   (32 bits) | 2.263

IBM Visual Age C  XP   (32 bits) | 2.652

Borland C 5.60    XP   (32 bits) | 2.713

Watcom C 1.90     XP   (32 bits) | 2.746

Pelles C Compiler XP   (32 bits) | 3.110

Digital Mars 8.52 XP   (32 bits) | 3.512

LCC C Compiler    XP   (32 bits) | 3.591

Tiny C Compiler   XP   (32 bits) | 5.688

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden] On Behalf Of address@hidden
Sent: mardi 6 mars 2012 16:06
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] i just can't get over how farging fast tcc is...


I also always thought tcc doesn't optimize the Code as much as the other Compilers and so the Executables must be significantly slower.

And some of you also posted examples here that are corresponding to this assumption but have you seen the benchmarks by staalmannen on phoronix.com?

Link to the Thread: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?29090-CompilerDeathMatch-surprising-results

The Results shows that the performance of TCC-Compiled Executables is more than just Comparable to the ones of other Compilers in most Cases it is one of the 5 fastest by for Example the Apache-Benchmark it is the fastest in these Benchmarks.

There are many result-stages in the Thread so look there for more information for a quick overview here is one (where there are not as many compilers like in later ones, but on the later ones you can't see the numbers on the Graphics anymore)

Link: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/index.php?k=profile&u=staalmannen-1284-1397-9429

I don't really know how the phoronix-test-suite used for these benchmarks so I don't know how reliable they are, but it was really astonishing!

PS: I just subscribed to this list so i coudn't just reply to the Mail in the Subject. I hope it lands in the right Thread (don't know the Maillist Software either)


Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de


Tinycc-devel mailing list



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]