On 0, Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> wrote: > David Abrahams <david.abrahams@rcn.com> [2002-08-20 20:54:44 -0400]: > > problem with Linux system administration?) ...I'm not sure I made the right > > distro choice anymore, given my desire to test with Intel C++. > > > > I hope somebody can convince me otherwise... I'm not looking forward to > > installing RH7.2 and trying to approximate the results of all the flailing > > I've done with Debian by flailing again. > > I am coming late to this thread of discussion. Sorry. But I am using > the Intel C++ compiler on Debian with no trouble. I am running woody > stable on the machines. I am running libc-2.2.5-11.1 with a 2.4.17 > kernel on one and 2.4.18 on another. Works fine. Pardon me if this > just does not fit with the previous discussion. So it looks like the 2.2 series kernel is the problem, not the glibc. > I have two complaints. The Intel C++ compiler has its own shared > libraries that it installs under its install directory. Which means > any binary that I were to ship will also depend upon that special > shared library, and it is a non-standard thing. And two is that the > binaries produced are very large due to inlining. And presumably very fast due to that too. Not in Intel's defense, but it's a tradeoff that is not the same for everybody. Memory and disk are generally regarded as insignificantly cheap by developers; in recent years this approximation has almost become accurate. Tom -- Tom Cook Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide "If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by candlelight." - George Gobol Get my GPG public key: https://pinky.its.adelaide.edu.au/~tkcook/tom.cook-at-adelaide.edu.au
Attachment:
pgpYevWxYWrfY.pgp
Description: PGP signature