gcc -> clang - #17
gcc -> clang#17Xarlotee wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
Why? |
|
Hi In short, Skia recommends building with Clang rather than GCC. We are currently working on a compatibility layer between Skija and SkiaSharp and have observed significant performance regressions in a number of operations, ranging from tens to hundreds of times slower. Profiling revealed that several critical code paths are not being vectorized. The root cause appears to be the use of GCC instead of Clang. https://skia.org/docs/user/build/#highly-recommended-build-with-clang-cl We are currently working on a merge request for the Skija repository. Once we have the final results, we plan to submit pull requests along with a detailed description of the findings and the observed performance improvements. |
|
Okay I don’t mind moving to clang, especially if Skia itself recommends it. But would be nice to move all platforms to it if possible. With Linux, basically, we tried to use as old linux distribution as possible so that it runs on older installations IIRC. That was the motivation for GCC-9 |
|
Hi @tonsky, We’ve moved on from this branch/version, and the changes here have since been reworked against the current codebase. I’ve prepared a new PR with the complete implementation, detailed explanation of the optimization, and the performance results: I’ll close this PR as superseded and continue the discussion in the new one, so that the review is based on the current code and results. Thanks for the feedback on the original approach! |
|
@vladimirsamsonov you moved away from m119? |
|
We are currently using the stable m119 version in production, and it still meets our current requirements. However, since we also need to maintain parity with SkiaSharp, which has moved several major versions ahead this summer, we are now looking to upgrade to newer builds. We don't plan to continue developing the 119 branch going forward, and will only consider critical fixes for it if necessary. |
3 participants
No description provided.