Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel C/C++ Compiler Beats GCC

Posted by michael on from the giving-her-all-she's-got-captain dept.

jfonseca writes: "An article from Open Magazine claims the new Intel C/C++ compiler's geometric mean performance on multiple kernels compiled through it reached 47% improvement over GCC. They also predict the end to the ubiquitous GNU compiler due to low performance. Many other compiler/platform combinations also compared. A bit pretentious, yet an interesting read."

5 of 580 comments (clear)

  1. Re:GCC will live by Crapflooder · · Score: -1, Troll

    Who praises MS to heaven? Certainly not the slashdot crowd. I believe it is about time people start calling the open sores community on their bullshit.

    Look at what Ximian did with their anti-KDE/pro-Gnome ad campaign in February 2001. That was definitely not ethical business practices. I am suprised de Icaza is still on the FSF's board of directors, despite RMS ranting on and on against things like this in his writings like the GNU manifesto. He's a hypocrite.

    And wrt GCC: just look at all those non-ANSI/C99 features gcc has. Once people start using them, their fucked. It's a typical example of "embrace and extend".

  2. Missing benchmarks? by Daniel · · Score: 1, Troll

    Open letter to the authors:

    This is a very interesting article, and I'm sure that it will be food for thought for many people.

    However, I think that some important benchmarks were accidentally omitted. Could you include your comparison of the Intel, Microsoft, and GNU compilers on powerpc, sparc, alpha, mips, arm, and hppa?

    Thanks,
    Daniel

    --
    Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  3. Re:GNU is no longer the driving force behind free by lparosii · · Score: -1, Troll
    > Maybe I'm paranoid, but maybe RMS is not very enthusiastic about C++ support because GNOME would look even worse in comparison to KDE, once a good C++ compiler is available?

    Paranoid, stupid?

    > I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork.

    Cygnus?

    > But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.

    Maybe you should have kept your opinion to yourself, that is my opinion.

  4. Re:Hello Slashdot Moderators by arcade · · Score: 0, Troll

    I just gave away a couple of high karma accounts on Slashdot because of:

    Haha! So, 'high-karma' accounts is a commodity. How stupid is it possible to get?

    If your ISP is fuckwits, switch ISPs, don't complain here.

    If that was to techincal for you, go bugger off.

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  5. Re:GCC will live by eschasi · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'm sorry, but that's just plain silly. 90-95% of the freeware systems (Linux, *BSD, BEOS) run on Intel-based systems. If the Intel compiler is as good as claimed and is reasonably priced, every single significant *IX-based web server is going to be cut over to it in nothing flat. Sure, GCC won't die. But if these numbers hold up, it's going to be second banana on Intel-based systems for a long time to come.