Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This doesn't align with my experience. Clang is about the same, but GCC often seems much slower emitting cross-ARM code.

  jar% time x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   0.97s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 0.992 total
  jar% time x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   0.93s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.965 total
  jar% time x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   0.94s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 0.947 total
  jar% time x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   0.92s user 0.04s system 99% cpu 0.955 total

  jar% time arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   1.43s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 1.458 total
  jar% time arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   1.46s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 1.486 total
  jar% time arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   1.55s user 0.04s system 99% cpu 1.587 total
  jar% time arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I ../../shared/api
  arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc --std=c99 -O3 -c insgps14state.c -I inc -I   1.44s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 1.471 total



That’s interesting. I was not cross compiling so maybe the arm system I was using was just faster.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: