"And even worse, it's generating worse and ridiculously bigger code. So they spend a lot of effort for worse result."
GCC aggressively size optimizes cold regions, and LLVM doesn't bother.
This would be pretty easy to fix, but outside of binary size, need to prove it actually matters (the test harness here is a pretty darn old CPU)
The "don't catch serious problems in build system" is the bigger worry, imho.
I have re-tested on my skylake notebook and updated the blog. It confirms darn old CPU I use as my benchmark machine. Maybe it is bit more sensitive to the difference which is expected for non-server CPU.
GCC does "almost full LTO" with partitioning, while clang does thinLTO that does make most of code size/speed tradeoffs without considering whole program context, so it may be interesting to get both alternatives closer in code size/performance metrics.
I have got Firefox developer account of level1 and I am looking into official benchmarking architecture which I have now updated to GCC 8 with LTO+PGO.
GCC aggressively size optimizes cold regions, and LLVM doesn't bother. This would be pretty easy to fix, but outside of binary size, need to prove it actually matters (the test harness here is a pretty darn old CPU)
The "don't catch serious problems in build system" is the bigger worry, imho.