I'd like to test it with the new Rust-coded runtime, especially if it's faster, but I won't have time to build it for a couple of days. I actually avoided building it earlier because I thought the new scheduler was slower and needed time to mature (I think I read that it doesn't yet swap tasks between threads, or something along those lines?), but I must have misread.
It's been maturing fast and most of those problems have been fixed, although I wouldn't be surprised if you continue to see problems (and if you do filing issues would be much appreciated) :)
Yes this was a interesting benchmark, nice work. One question though, why are you using an old version of GCC (4.7)?
4.8 has been out for quite some time, I did a quick comparison using your benchmark between gcc 4.8.1 and clang 3.3 on my system and clang still won but the difference was ~3.5% on my machine.
I was using LLVM 3.2 because Rust and LLVM-D use that, so I thought it was fair. GCC 4.7 followed from this because I assumed it was of the same generation as LLVM 3.2, and that 4.8.1 was newer so less fair to compare to LLVM 3.2.
You're right that it probably makes for a better benchmark, and I tried to use recent versions for the other languages, I just didn't bother for C and C++ as I assumed they'd already be the fastest in class so there was no need to test on the latest compilers.
Well my main interest in this benchmark was actually that of Rust and Go as those are the languages tested that I'm personally most interested in (nice seeing them performing quite well), I just found the use of older compiler versions as an odd thing (though you explained your rationale).
Any chance you would consider putting the compiler version used (for all compilers, not just c/c++) next to the compiler in the column for better disclosure?
