GCC 3.2.1 Released

Szplug writes "GCC 3.2.1 has been released; many C++ bugs, & notably for x86 users, MMX code generation has been fixed. From the notice, ".. the number of bug fixes is quite large, so it is strongly recommended that users of earlier GCC 3.x releases upgrade to GCC 3.2.1."
Here are overview and detailed change notices. Download here [gnu mirror site]."

Comments

Kernel?

[fulldecent]

Would it be a viable consideration to recompile our kernels in light of this better MMX code generation? Better yet, is it generally a good idea to recompile our kernels whenever a bugfix release of GCC comes out?

How about the Intel Compiler?

[IrvineHosting]

From all I've read and the benchmarks I've looked at, ICC (Intel Compiler) is 99% compatible with GCC and code generated is 30%-50% faster.

This difference may be enough to push Linux way past Microsoft if Linux apps run that much faster than Microsoft apps.

It seems like its crazy that the distros (REDHAT, SUSE, etc) don't use ICC as a drop in replacement for 386+ compiling.

For other platforms use GCC, but why should 90% of users be punished for the sake of cross-platform features (sounds like java)?

When will the linux kernel be compatible with ICC and why aren't more using it??

Re:How about the Intel Compiler?

[Ed Avis]

Then you have to ask, if Intel has its own compiler, why do they not release it as free software? They must think that the money they make from compiler sales outweighs the increased sales of Intel processors from having a good free compiler for them. I can imagine this is true for IA-32 since code optimized for a P4 also runs well on an Athlon, so Intel wouldn't particularly be promoting their own chips (except for those choosing between say SPARC and i386 for their new supercomputer, and there aren't many of those).

Re:How about the Intel Compiler?

[cimetmc]

I think it's mainly a support issue. The money Intel gets from the compiler is probably used to pay the people that have to support the compiler. Software companies would certainly want to get professional support, and the cost of the compiler is certainly not an issue for them. For those people who pay for the Intel compiler, Intel gives support. If Intel gave away the compiler to everyone, they could not give the same level of support to everyone, and professional users might not be keen to use the compiler without proper support behind it.

Marcel

Re:How about the Intel Compiler?

[Ed Avis]

This is the old argument that RMS addressed in the GNU manifesto. If companies want support for the compiler, and are willing to pay for compiler plus support, surely they would be willing to buy support and get the compiler as free software.

No, it must be the case that there isn't enough demand for support to make it economical to make the compiler free and sell support. Intel has to make the compiler itself payware in order to get the most money from it.