> >> Intel already handed icc + performace libs to apple, but from my > >> experience icc doesn't create any faster code then gcc. Is there > >> any *recent* benchmark that shows otherwise? > > Define "recent". > > >> I know that heavy math code is likely to perform better on icc but > >> this is rather uninteresting to general audience. > > In general, the choice of compiler is unimportant for the performance of > most user-bound programs. I doubt KDE would run much faster if compiled > with ICC, for example. > > However, for codecs, image processing, and other math-intensive > operations, Intel generally produces faster code, though > not always. This isn't just a matter of floating-point generation -- > Intel's vectorizer gives their compiler a distinct advantage over GCC, > although I expect GCC to catch up in this regard. > > Rather than speculate about Apple, it would be better to find more > funding for GCC development. I know that some people are working on this. I don't think you should worry about this. Because:
a) Apple just started the transition to PowerPC64. (A politically correct statement would be that Apple just stopped the transition to PowerPC32). If they were still working on that (large parts of OSX still aren't 64-bit), the programmers at Apple would probably be very annoyed, considering that pretty much everything (exceptions: Darwin, iTunes, AppleWorks, QuickTime) was written for the PowerPC. b) It's unlikely that _every_ Mac software company would port all of there programs to the x86, more or less Apple themselves. c) Some existing work (e.g. BootX) would have to be completly trashed or rewritten from scratch. d) Most of us don't want to waste there money on a new Mac just because there switching to x86. In summary, we shouldn't worry about this, because 75% of what Apple is planning to do is a bad idea for them. Samuel Lauber -- _______________________________________________ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze
