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

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 9, 2002 @08:35AM 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."

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Kudos to GCC by zulux · 2002-05-09 09:16 · 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.
Why use -fast-math? by V.+Mole · 2002-05-10 03:24 · 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 :-)).