2001-11-23 14:37:03

by Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: gcc vs intel's cc

hi all

have anyone tried Intel's commercial compiler and tried to compare the
results with gcc?

roy

--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, MCSE, MCNE, CLS, LCA

Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.


2001-11-23 14:44:53

by FD Cami

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: gcc vs intel's cc

Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:

> hi all
>
> have anyone tried Intel's commercial compiler and tried to compare the
> results with gcc?
>
> roy


It's faster, but i read that it cannot compile the kernel yet.

Fran?ois

2001-11-23 14:48:43

by Martin Eriksson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: gcc vs intel's cc

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 3:36 PM
Subject: gcc vs intel's cc


> hi all
>
> have anyone tried Intel's commercial compiler and tried to compare the
> results with gcc?

I have heard it's pretty nice, even for Athlon XP's, but you can't compile
the kernel with it anyway, so this should not be in "linux-kernel".

_____________________________________________________
| Martin Eriksson <[email protected]>
| MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science
| Ume? University, Sweden


2001-11-23 19:46:46

by J Sloan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: gcc vs intel's cc

Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:

> hi all
>
> have anyone tried Intel's commercial compiler and tried to compare the
> results with gcc?

yes and no.

The intel compiler has shown better performance
for userspace programs - however it is incapable
of compiling the kernel.

cu

jjs