On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 09:51, John Schmidt wrote: > On Thursday 19 December 2002 01:08 am, Oleg wrote: > > > > P.P.S To preemptively answer the inevitable question why I want Intel > > compilers in addition to GCC: I'm interested in high-performance > > numeric computing, looking at the code Intel compilers generate, and > > comparing different compilers' performance. > > Our university funded DOE ASCI center went through a similar comparison > with a large C++ code. We actually had several Intel engineers bang > away on the compilers trying to tweak compiler flags and the code > itself. Even turning on special undocumented flags, and tweaking the > code, the performance was no better than using gcc. In fact the > optimizations they did to the code also helped gcc. We didn't find > that the Intel compilers would yield any benefit. Your mileage will > vary though. Good luck > > John Schmidt I don't know how dated it is now, but I remember at one point the Watcom compilers were no slouch at tight, fast code - IBM used them to compile the Windows 3.1 support for OS/2 and got such improvements that Windows running as just one task on an OS/2 box ran faster than MS Windows running on MS-DOS. I remember the coding work from a couple decades back when I worked there, and I'm curious if there are aspects of the now open source code that could be constructively integrated in gcc (just idle thoughts on my part - there is a reason why I do systems analysis rather than down in the bits coding now, and why I'm not hacking patches myself to gcc.) -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part