Nicolai Guba wrote: >Why bother with GCC at all? It is a horrible compiler which produces slow >code (and has many optimizations above -O2 broken). It's main advantages are >that it is portable and free. If you are looking for a compiler that >actually produces good binaries you are looking the wrong way IMO. > >ICC is a better compiler by far. Shame ICC support is only in a couple of >packages and not more widespread. > >
<sarcasm> There's a compiler that is even better than ICC. Microsoft's C/C++ V7 (.NET) compiler produces even smaller and faster programs and libraries than ICC. It is really a shame that more Linux packages don't support using the .NET compilers. </sarcasm> Do you even realize that Linux and Gentoo runs on many more processors than Intel Pentiums? Besides, calling _any_ open source program "horrible" is offensive to me. Hundreds of people/companies have donated tens-of-thousands of hours to developing GCC, and have asked you for *nothing* in return. If you don't want to use GCC, that's fine. If you want to suggest that ICC can produce faster code for Intel processors, that's fine. Publicly bashing their work is unacceptable. -Richard -- [email protected] mailing list
