Hi, On Mar 01, 2014, at 17:29, Clemens Lang wrote:
Frankly, for my own stuff (which never gets beyond my own machines in binary form) I couldn't care less about copyright issues, I don't understand the concept of different flavours of free ;) >> with 10.9. So if you're writing C++ code for OS X, you'll have to use >> clang++ -stdlib=libc++ as soon as you link against a single other C++ >> library or export a C++ interface. For now apps using X11 seem fine, but I haven't tried much yet. > Btw, on getting GCC use your Core i7 capabilities: That will probably not > happen either, because the GNU as shipped by Apple doesn't support AVX > instructions – clang is currently the only compiler able to use AVX > instructions on OS X. Wasn't counting on it anyway. > So in general, GCC is pretty much dead on newer versions of OS X and you > should really have very very very good reasons to attempt to use anything but > clang. Performance is such a reason in my book, as I said, in just about any test I've done clang-generated code performs consistently (and sometimes probably significantly) worse than gcc-generated code does. I don't know to what extent clang does auto-vectorisation, but I've been impressed by the progress made in that domain by gcc (I've already seen an auto-vectorised version of a "scalar" video format conversion function from Perian outperform the hand-coded SSE2 version by almost a factor 10). Fortunately we're no longer living in times where a few percents in performance gain or loss were actually noticeable in common use scenarios! I also find gcc's error messages to be much more readable (though less so in the more recent versions). _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
