diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | www/performance.html | 8 |
1 files 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 <tt>-fsyntax-only</tt> below show -the difference of running with <tt>-fsyntax-only</tt> verse running +the difference of running with <tt>-fsyntax-only</tt> versus running with <tt>-parse-noop</tt> (for clang) or <tt>-MM</tt> 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).</p> @@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ working to address this.</p> 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 <tt>-S -O0 -g</tt> and ~20% faster verse llvm-gcc.</p> +performance means Clang still comes in at ~29% faster versus gcc +on <tt>-S -O0 -g</tt> and ~20% faster versus llvm-gcc.</p> <p>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.</p> |