Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Benchmarking Intel C++ 6.0 to GNU g++ 3.0.4

Posted by timothy on from the religious-fervor dept.

axehind writes: "Here is a good article detailing a benchmark [comparison] between the two compilers. The results are very interesting."

3 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. Kudos to GCC by zulux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given that GCC is cross-platform to the extreme, I'm verry impressed with GCC ability to hold up well to Intel's finest. Plus GCC has diferent front-ends for other languages, it gets even more impressive.

    Aside:
    Personally, for initial developemnt of cross platform stuff, I actually use Borland's C++ Builder compiler and linker. It produces slow code, but it's amazingly fast at compiling and linking. The debug and compile cycle goes so much faster - that I get more work done faster than with Emacs and GCC. After the code runs well on Windows - I move on to testing with GCC on other platforms.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  2. Re:Please by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, the Linux kernel has lots of bugs with regards to being correct C code. If you port it to another compiler, you're going to fix a lot of bugs. Making Linux more portable is likely to clean up a lot of issues.

    --
    May we never see th
  3. Why use -fast-math? by V.+Mole · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While there are some uses for it, I doubt that any serious floating-point codes would use "fast-math" (shorthand for "not-quite-right-math"). IEEE math is not perfect, but it allows one to estimate and control error accumulation reliably. The correct response to discovering that ICC defaults to fast-math is not to enable it in GCC, but disable it in ICC.

    I've no idea whether it change the relative result of the benchmarks, but at least they'd be representative of actual use. (Or run them both ways, actually, to see which compiler is "cheating" more :-)).