yes okay, compatibility reasons. but my question was: "does it still make sense to use sunpro performance wise?"
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:43:19 +0100, Udo Grabowski (IMK) wrote: > On 09/01/2024 22:37, Goetz T. Fischer wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 11:40:53 +0100, Udo Grabowski (IMK) wrote: >>> For C/C++, I would absolutely prefer gcc/g++ >> >> why? > > As said. the old sunpro doesn't support modern standards, > and the newer ones that do are not binary compatible anymore; > and for C++, it causes issues with lousily written packages > to not compile without nontrivial patches, while gcc just > happily let them through, see: > <https://www.oracle.com/application-development/te>chnologies/developerstudio-cplusplus-faq.html#Coding10> > > The other culprit is the standards-required name-mangling > uniqueness for each compiler, which don't let you mix > C++ libraries from different brands to be called from one > program (which was dropped from later C++ standards), > which then requires you to have more than one C++ brand > of libraries at hand to link (this was one of the obstacles > to solve to get python scipy/numpy linked when using the Sun > F90 compiler for the LAPACK/BLAS libraries, which took a lot > of tinkering with the python toolchain on an old oi151a9). > > So if you don't have specific requirements forced on you > by already existing libraries using the sunpro stuff, > I would recommend to always go with the gcc/g++ tools. > > Didn't use clang/llvm, so can't say much about > that._______________________________________________ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
