On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 16:59, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Vadim Vygonets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > From what I understood, people are complaining that icc takes
> > more time to compile the same files than gcc.
>
> It makes sense to me that a compiler that optimizes better with take
> more ti
Quoth Oleg Goldshmidt on Tue, Feb 25, 2003:
> Vadim Vygonets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > From what I understood, people are complaining that icc takes
> > more time to compile the same files than gcc.
>
> It makes sense to me that a compiler that optimizes better with take
> more time.
Yes
Vadim Vygonets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From what I understood, people are complaining that icc takes
> more time to compile the same files than gcc.
It makes sense to me that a compiler that optimizes better with take
more time.
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, Feb 24, 2003:
> yes, certainly, I'm aware of "make -j 3", but two
> separate projects which look at different files and parts of the
> disk (causing lots of head skips, cache threshing etc)?
The compiler run, from system resources usage point of view, is
consisting
Quoth Oleg Goldshmidt on Tue, Feb 25, 2003:
> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there anything, which is original Israeli, and which is offered to
> > gullible people to test their gullibility?
>
> The network bridge developed by an Israeli startup perfectly
> positioned to take over the
Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there anything, which is original Israeli, and which is offered to
> gullible people to test their gullibility?
The network bridge developed by an Israeli startup perfectly
positioned to take over the dark fiber?
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Daniel Feiglin wrote:
> Aren't we missing something here: The $305.99 price tag.
>
> Oh, and let's not forget that dear old open source GCC can function as a
> full cross compiler which also costs. We're stuck with Intel for now,
> but who knows what we'll be using in a few ye
On 24 Feb 2003 17:05:48 +0200
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> " [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# grep processors /var/log/dmesg
>Total of 64 processors activated (76359.40 BogoMIPS). "
Have you put your Altix-3000 on the "linux-il used equipment list"
(together with Marc's Sparcs?)
I'l
Omer Zak wrote:
On 24 Feb 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Price tag isn't the issue - not be able to ever fix bugs is - or do you
believe there are no bugsin the Intel compiler (not that I have ever
worked with it)? if so I have a bridge here I'd be interested to sell
you... :-)
Wasn't that
Omer Zak wrote:
On 24 Feb 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Price tag isn't the issue - not be able to ever fix bugs is - or do you
believe there are no bugsin the Intel compiler (not that I have ever
worked with it)? if so I have a bridge here I'd be interested to sell
you... :-)
Wasn't that bridg
On 24 Feb 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Price tag isn't the issue - not be able to ever fix bugs is - or do you
> believe there are no bugsin the Intel compiler (not that I have ever
> worked with it)? if so I have a bridge here I'd be interested to sell
> you... :-)
Wasn't that bridge broken
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Noam Meltzer wrote:
> (and thats assuming that the utility is written in such a way so every
> compiler will be able to compile it.
> but considering the amount of warnings in the source of everything
> (including kernel+qt+kde+gnome, and every thing mains
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 16:14, Daniel Feiglin wrote:
> Aren't we missing something here: The $305.99 price tag.
>
> Oh, and let's not forget that dear old open source GCC can function as a
> full cross compiler which also costs. We're stuck with Intel for now,
> but who knows what we'll be using i
that depends that the configure script, Makefile, automake, or whatever
the package is using supports it.
I have had a lot of head heck to port open-software to HP recently, and
I know that many times you have to edit many files in the source in
order to force them respect your env.vars.
Noam
(a
aniel Feiglin
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:15 PM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Intel compiler vs. gcc
>
>
> Aren't we missing something here: The $305.99 price tag.
>
> Oh, and let's not forget that dear old open source GCC can
> function as a
Aren't we missing something here: The $305.99 price tag.
Oh, and let's not forget that dear old open source GCC can function as a
full cross compiler which also costs. We're stuck with Intel for now,
but who knows what we'll be using in a few years from now? Anyone
remember DEC, DG, Interdata .
the compiler is
slow. Slow compared to what? gcc in the same situation?
Just trying to watch and learn...
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
.
Have you tried to do the same (compile X11 and KDE CVS's at
the same time) with the GNU gcc and got better results?
-Original Message-
From: Hetz Ben-Hamo
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: In
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Intel compiler vs. gcc
>
>
> > > They claim 30% performance gain on gcc 3.2..
> >
> > I've read (don't remember the sourc
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:19:55PM +0200, Hetz Ben-Hamo wrote:
> My only gripe is that the compile speed itself is
> SSLLOOWWW... compiling X11 CVS + KDE CVS at the same time is a
> great way to see how to bring your CPU to it's knees..
I prefer fast generated code to faster compile times. How o
> > They claim 30% performance gain on gcc 3.2..
>
> I've read (don't remember the source, sorry, maybe lkml) that
> snapshot gcc from CVS is closing the gap quickly.
My only gripe is that the compile speed itself is SSLLOOWWW... compiling X11
CVS + KDE CVS at the same time is a great way to s
ביום שני 24 פברואר 2003, 12:51, Muli Ben-Yehuda כתב:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:48:34PM +0200, Michael Sternberg wrote:
> > Somebody tried Intel C++ Compiler 7.0 for Linux ?
>
> http://www.programmersparadise.com/Product.pasp?txtCatalog=Paradise&txtCate
>gory=&txtProductID=I23+0A12
>
> Good artic
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:48:34PM +0200, Michael Sternberg wrote:
>
> Somebody tried Intel C++ Compiler 7.0 for Linux ?
>
http://www.programmersparadise.com/Product.pasp?txtCatalog=Paradise&txtCategory=&txtProductID=I23+0A12
Good article about it here:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?s
Somebody tried Intel C++ Compiler 7.0 for Linux ?
http://www.programmersparadise.com/Product.pasp?txtCatalog=Paradise&txtCategory=&txtProductID=I23+0A12
They claim 30% performance gain on gcc 3.2..
Michael
=
To uns
24 matches
Mail list logo
