That sounds ok to me. But how can I find out what ebuilds support icc. I'd like to try some others than povray. Maybe QT or KDE woul be good but I'm not sure if this will work - probably not :-( .

Michael

Brian Budge wrote:
ICC can produce faster code, but it won't always... It tends to be about 5% faster on my own path tracer. One thing to note is that there are several compiler options for optimization. There are things like global interprocedural opts, even interfile opts, and you can also compile using statistics from previous runs (to aid branch prediction, etc...).

I would say that most of the time, ICC produces slightly faster code. My argument is that GCC can do things from the C++ standard that ICC cannot, like partial template specialization.

Brian

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael Gruetzner wrote:


Harald Arnesen wrote:

Martin LORANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:



What is exactely the benefit of ICC ?


It produces _much_ faster code than gcc (even the very latest 3.4-stuff)
for most applications I have tested.

I just testet it with povray. The gcc compiled version of povray is faster than the icc version.
These are the scenes I tested:


/usr/share/povray/scenes/balcony/balcony.pov

gcc: 125s
icc: 190s

/usr/share/povray/scenes/abyss.pov

gcc: 23s
icc: 23s

So I don't think, that icc produces faster code.

Michael





-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list




--
# Basic IBM dingbats, some of which will never have a purpose clear
# to mankind
        2.4.0 linux/drivers/char/cp437.uni


-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Reply via email to