Adam Stylinski wrote:
The intel C Compiler (icc) has an ebuild for gentoo and the wiki has
a script to integrate it with portage.
I'm using ICC for programs where I have numbers about performance; for
example, bzip2 is 30% faster here when compiled with ICC.
However, one thing I don't like
I'm not suggesting that it be sold. Gentoo is
non-profit anyway, the livecd could be available for
download only. The binaries don't have to be
licensed if you're not selling them, however the
compiler does. This is where the non-commercial free
license comes in (with a fetch restriction requiring
I actually know somebody working at intel, maybe he can get them more involved.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
BTW: Is ICC really worth the fuss ?
I have checked around and reported that newest gcc-4.3 is able to to
catch and sometimes even outperform icc ( not always, naturally).
Big news seemed to be thatnew gcc si close and sometimes better than icc.
Is it any truth to that and if it is, what is
Robert Bridge wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:34:11 +0900
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Stylinski wrote:
The intel C Compiler (icc)
icc, xlc, llvm, sunstudio could be interesting fields of discovery.
Which are the pitfalls of using icc?
lu
If I recall
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to
address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to
contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Apologies if you received this mail already, I'm having problems with my
smtp.
On Thursday July 17 Adam Stylinski wrote:
The intel C Compiler (icc) has an ebuild for gentoo and the wiki has
a script to integrate it with portage. This script works
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday July 17, Adam Stylinski wrote:
Pro's:
1.) Bloody fast machine code. Intel obfuscates their architecture
but they give back to the community as much as possible to make their
hardware marketable toward the open source sysadmin,
GCC 4.3 is catching up, but they are no where near utilizing SSE4 or SSE5
instructions.
http://blog.alphagemini.org/2008/03/icc-vs-gcc-43.html
He concludes that it's not worth pursuing, but I beg to differ. Those are
signifcant differences for a processor.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Branko Badrljica wrote:
BTW: Is ICC really worth the fuss ?
I have checked around and reported that newest gcc-4.3 is able to to
catch and sometimes even outperform icc ( not always, naturally).
Big news seemed to be thatnew gcc si close and sometimes better than icc.
Is it any truth to that
2008-07-18 16:01:28 Doug Goldstein napisał(a):
Olivier Cr�te wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to
address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to
contain proper
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:24:58 -0400 (EDT)
Adam Stylinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GCC 4.3 is catching up, but they are no where near utilizing SSE4 or
SSE5 instructions.
http://blog.alphagemini.org/2008/03/icc-vs-gcc-43.html
He concludes that it's not worth pursuing, but I beg to differ.
He's also doing it on a core 2 duo. It would be interesting to compare this
with some mildly legacy hardware (netburst pipelines) in order to see whether
GCC does a comparable job. My guess would be no, seeing as netburst was
extremely ugly and complicated, only intel would be able to write a
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one of
the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.
Sure it will. When the version of libc you have installed is removed
from the portage tree you'll get bumped to the most recent
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
'@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.
Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?
Rob.
--
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:16:18 +0100
Sébastien Fabbro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was some attempts a few years ago for rolling up a full Gentoo
with icc, but it hit several problems if I recall. Now both icc and
gcc have improved since then.
Including needing package specific CFLAGS because
Portage no longer install ._cfg_* files for the CONFIG_PROTECTed
files touched by the user. Even if I remove the package and reinstall it
again, the protected file will remain like it is.
Can someone enlighten me?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Also, in the academic environment the grad student/university can pay for the
license that the student slipstreams into their gentoo installation, making it
100% legal depending on how many seats he or she buys.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The more interesting question, then, is whether users run any
non-trivial cpu-bound programs. We know the applied science types do,
but they tend to be the ones who're doing clever things with icc
anyway. What about normal users?
I'm sure they do on some occasion if
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:34:53 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The more interesting question, then, is whether users run any
non-trivial cpu-bound programs. We know the applied science types
do, but they tend to be the ones who're doing clever things with
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
How much of that is memory bound? Of the things that aren't, how many
aren't written in assembly anyway? Of those things, what proportion of
the runtime is spent in those areas?
If you double the speed of something that takes up 2% of the overall
execution time, you
Perhaps we could write a script that compiles packages in portage with both ICC
and GCC and runs them with different flags. I think there was an effort on the
GCC side already to test flags with specific packages. We can then have the
script run time on the applications doing work (again,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alin Năstac wrote:
Portage no longer install ._cfg_* files for the CONFIG_PROTECTed
files touched by the user. Even if I remove the package and reinstall it
again, the protected file will remain like it is.
Can someone enlighten me?
It's
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:01:28 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know
how to address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:21:24 +0100
Robert Bridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
'@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system
Marius Mauch kirjoitti:
If someone wants to use it I can add it on the tree (after the normal
review process and being better tested), but I'll only be doing it
when there is an actual demand for it (no point in adding an eclass that
nobody uses).
I have been long thinking about adding
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:20:15 -0400
Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
080717 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
[2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-awk1.html
'03 Jul 2008' has been added since I sent my comment to them
yesterday ! However, the incorrect URL for
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:55:00 +
Raul Porcel (armin76) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
armin76 08/07/18 17:55:00
Modified: mozcoreconf-2.eclass
Log:
Enable by default mozilla's optimization
+IUSE=${IUSE} custom-optimization
+
Could you use custom-cflags for this
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:01:23 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the new split in Portage where system set packages are not
considered in an emerge -auDNv world unless something in world
RDEPENDs on it brings about a few issues.
Just curious, what are the benefits of not
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:13:01 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just curious, what are the benefits of not having world include
system?
Nevermind, I just found your post explaining this.
--
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
treecleaner,
Hi,
Attached patch adds objects cpv, pv and version to portage.versions. This is
meant as a thin layer over functions vercmp(), pkgcmp(), pkgsplit() and
catpkgsplit().
Using these objects instead of the mentioned functions allows us to write
cleaner code and remove deprecated stuff like:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:41:52 +0300, Ali Polatel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Attached patch adds objects cpv, pv and version to portage.versions. This
is
meant as a thin layer over functions vercmp(), pkgcmp(), pkgsplit() and
catpkgsplit().
Using these objects instead of the mentioned
I will be out of the office starting 06/09/2008 and will not return until
08/04/2008.
I will be out of the office until August 4, 2008. If you need assistance,
please contact Michelle Behm, Ext. 1266 or Shawn Sullivan, Ext. 1267.
Otherwise, I will respond to your message when I return.
--
33 matches
Mail list logo
