[Vm-dev] benchmarking and recent results

[Nicolas Cellier]

Ah, that explains why Esteban did not find the same flags as me.
http://smallissimo.blogspot.fr/2013/02/compiling-squeak-cog-virtual-machine-on.html
I never understood he was not really using gcc but a facade to clang!


2013/10/5 Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>

>
> On 10/05/2013 07:25 PM, Tobias Pape wrote:
>
>> Am 05.10.2013 um 19:07 schrieb Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>:
>>
>>
>>  On 10/05/2013 12:31 PM, Tobias Pape wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 05.10.2013 um 11:48 schrieb Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>:
>>>>
>>>>> PPS. Also tried using GCC 4.8.1 and 4.9, but then the compiled VM
>>>>> throws "Bus error: 10" at me. Note that it compiles using the switches for
>>>>> clang then... (Esteban and Igor - we need a nice way of switching compiler
>>>>> in CMakeVMMaker!)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You typically do that with the CMake invocation yourself like in:
>>>>
>>>> CC="clang -m32" CXX="clang++ -m32" cmake $SRCDIR
>>>> cmake --build $BUILDDIR
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, let me just say that the framework building the sources adds lots
>>> of switches for compiling the VM and also sometimes adjusts for different
>>> plugins etc.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, clearly.
>> The point is here, that CMake tries to match make insofar it
>> respects the CC and CXX environment variables.
>>    That is, when you want to switch the compiler for CMake,
>> you announce it by setting the environment variables[1]
>> This should  even work when CMake itself is run by a build script, so you
>> say
>>
>>    CC="clang -m32" ./build.sh
>>
>>
>> All other switches should be unaffected by this.
>>
>
> Sure, but that is the whole problem :). The current sources generated by
> the Pharo setup has a range of switches that makes it compile fine with
> clang, specifically made for clang. (on OSX)
>
> Now... if I throw in gcc 4.8.1 or 4.9, it produces a VM that bombs when I
> run it. I suspect it is because the specific combo of switches that makes
> clang dance (and Esteban reportedly did a lot of test-and-try to find that
> specific combo) also makes GCC produce bad VMs.
>
> Granted, it could be some other reason. :)
>
> But it would be nice to keep both sets of "working switches" in the code,
> instead of just a single set.
>
> regards, Göran
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20131005/c1410a42/attachment.htm