From 8fa98450f729067e30db50cf75c69eb2efee0f48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Dunbar Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 01:24:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Grammar tweaks. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@58544 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- www/performance.html | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/www/performance.html b/www/performance.html index fe1fdff485..0c98011726 100644 --- a/www/performance.html +++ b/www/performance.html @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ been broken down into separate stages where possible: each subsequent stage simply adds some additional processing. The timings measure the delta of the given stage from the previous one. For example, the timings for -fsyntax-only below show -the difference of running with -fsyntax-only verse running +the difference of running with -fsyntax-only versus running with -parse-noop (for clang) or -MM with gcc and llvm-gcc. This amounts to a fairly accurate measure of only the time to perform semantic analysis (and parsing, in the case of gcc and llvm-gcc).

@@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ working to address this.

involves a large amount of code generation. The time spent in Clang's LLVM IR generation and code generation is on par with gcc's code generation time but the improved parsing & semantic analysis -performance means Clang still comes in at ~29% faster verse gcc -on -S -O0 -g and ~20% faster verse llvm-gcc.

+performance means Clang still comes in at ~29% faster versus gcc +on -S -O0 -g and ~20% faster versus llvm-gcc.

These numbers indicate that Clang still has room for improvement in several areas, notably our LLVM IR generation is significantly slower -than that of llvm-gcc, and both Clang and llvm-gcc both incur a +than that of llvm-gcc, and both Clang and llvm-gcc incur a significantly higher cost for adding debugging information compared to gcc.

-- 2.50.1