Quoting "V. T. Mueller, Continum" <v.t.muel...@continum.net> (from
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:15:19 +0200):
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to
what we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I
would have a look if my contact at Intel is still working there
in a position which allows him to get a commercial license for us.
A while ago it was stated by MySQL AB, that their dbms performs
about 20% better when compiled with icc instead of gcc. Is this
(still) true?
This looks overly simplified. "It runs better on CPU X with
benchmark Y on Mainboard Z when you use gcc A.B.C with options D
and compare it to icc E.F.G with options H." is something you can
use in such cases, but it doesn't tell you if it will be the case
on your machines with your workload.
If you want to know if it is faster on your machines with your
workload, then there is only one way to find it out: try it (be
warned, due to the amount of optimization options available in
gcc/icc, something like this will take a lot of time, as there are
a lot of combinations to try).
Sounds reasonable. But doesn't that mean, that there is no need to
(take the hassle to) support icc in the future? Especially while
folks are being keen on abandon gcc for clang?
It may matter in the HPC community where optimization to a specific
CPU matters (it doesn't matter that much for MySQL). There it does not
matter much to have the kernel compiled with icc, but a icc port would
be handy for them.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
