On mySimon: Bakugan Battle Brawlers Battle Pack
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 18 of 22:
Next »
« Previous
GCC tries to specialize
That was with all of the optimizations turned on. gcc ran in the middle of the bunch, nothing to write home about and nothing to curse at.

No, I did not run tests to compare object code produced against the gcc, Intel and MS compilers, Intel did. If you want to see their benchmarks I am sure that they are up at their website. Why is it difficult for you to believe that MS could produce a C compiler that produces superior code to gcc? MS throws money at their compiler group, it is not done by a bunch of bright volunteers in their free time. Intel's compiler is better for the same reason, they throw development money at it because it helps their bottom line and Intel's compiler is a plug in replacement for gcc on Linux. Why would anyone concern with optimization *not* use a superior compiler? The Intel compiler is not free, but it is reasonably priced in the same ballpark as any x86 C compiler would be.

AMD chips, wouldn't you then be looking at their compiler (I believe written for them by a third party), it also produces better code than gcc on the AMD chips. Anyway, I would not be surprised if Intel's compiler produced better code even for an AMD processor than gcc did.

>Besides, Microsoft's compiler is hardly an issue considering Windows itself is full of problems <_<.
We were talking about compilers for Linux, weren't we? If you can't say something good about gcc you fall back to making MS remarks, pretty unimaginative but expected from one of the Linux zombies that frequent these message boards.
Posted by: balsover   Posted on: 05/08/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Great to have the best and brightest working on the compiler.  DonnieBoy | 05/06/05
Another thing, we need binary compatibility accross distributions/kernels  DonnieBoy | 05/06/05
One would think that there would be a way ...  George Mitchell | 05/06/05
The problem is venders have to supply 10 or so drivers.  DonnieBoy | 05/06/05
And I'm telling you that the answer is a wrapper  George Mitchell | 05/07/05
Only if you go lowest common denominator  Knorthern Knight | 05/06/05
This is true but  hipparchus2000 | 05/07/05
Kind of like the idea behind NDISwrapper  Hugh Jass | 05/07/05
Let's put the REAL issues on the table  toomuchgreeatea@... | 05/07/05
Those are only issues for *YOU*...  figgle | 05/09/05
I'd rather have a slow driver than none at all...  figgle | 05/09/05
Binary compatibility...  Henry Miller | 05/07/05
This guy must be a newbie in Linux  toomuchgreeatea@... | 05/07/05
If you care about optimizations  balsover | 05/07/05
Improving Optimization in GCC.  mobrien_12@... | 05/07/05
No it is not a waste of time  balsover | 05/08/05
GCC can specialize . . .  CobraA1 | 05/08/05
GCC tries to specialize  balsover | 05/08/05
CobraA1, you just got spanked.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/08/05
What optimisations?  Richard Flude | 05/08/05
Interesting Linux win over Windows ...  George Mitchell | 05/07/05
More of a IBM over Dell story  balsover | 05/08/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement