Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Intel Compiler Released

Posted by Hemos on from the test-it-out dept.

swsnyder writes "A new toy to play with: new Intel compiler (v7.0) available for download at Intel's site. The Windows version is a time limited eval version, but the Linux version is free for non-commercial use. This version is claimed to be even more GCC-compatible that the last version, though I haven't verified this yet."

17 of 35 comments (clear)

  1. Redundant by keesh · · Score: 5, Funny

    "though I haven't verified this yet"

    You're posting to slashdot. Of course you haven't verified it.

  2. Kettle? by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 3, Funny

    How long does it take to make coffee in that neck of the woods?

  3. someone still hasn't had his coffee... by iosphere · · Score: 2, Funny

    Twice in the same morning?

    1. Re:someone still hasn't had his coffee... by sporty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Emergency bugfix release? :)

      If only companies worked this quick...

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  4. compatible? by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Funny

    even more GCC-compatible that the last version

    shouldn't it be more standards compliant

    ?

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:compatible? by LizardKing · · Score: 4, Informative

      shouldn't it be more standards compliant

      Nope, being more compatible with gcc implies it supports more gcc extensions. That's one reason why the Linux kernel used to break so much between gcc versions, as gcc is chock full of neat and not so neat extensions to the C language.

      Chris

  5. Thanks for Posting This Update! by Koos+Baster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow. These Intel guys are fast: Three new C++ compilers within 48 hours!
    ...And the're all binary compatible - at least to each other.

    --
    The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously

  6. Dupe by Xpilot · · Score: 2

    Hasn't this already been posted?

    http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02 /1 1/24/001248&mode=thread&tid=118

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
  7. Actually there have been three dupes today, by amarodeeps · · Score: 2
    ...by my counting.

    http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/1 1/25/1559231&mode=thread&tid=118

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/2 5/1226222&mode=thread&tid=134

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/25/032422 1&mode=thread&tid=111

    Don't worry Hemos, we all have days like that. ;) It is interesting stuff at least.

  8. GCC Compatable? by TerryAtWork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not just run GCC?

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    1. Re:GCC Compatable? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      GCC's big advantage is portability, not quality of optimization. I wouldn't go so far as to say that GCC sucks, but it's mediocre at best.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:GCC Compatable? by RupW · · Score: 2, Informative

      I assume that there's some good reason(s) to run the intel compiler vs gcc. I would guess that it involves specific optimizations for Intel chip(set)s. Am I wrong? Is there more(or less) to it than that?

      Yeah, that's about it. GCC continues to produce mediocre code for the P4 and Itanium. (The latter's very significant - some reports of 50% slower.) There are efforts to fix this but Intel has a significant lead.

      The other advantage is vectorization - Intel's compiler makes much better use of MMX/SSE/SSE2 than GCC does. I don't know how ICC compares to VectorC but I'd guess they'd have the edge back by now.

    3. Re:GCC Compatable? by WasterDave · · Score: 2

      The Intel compiler is a fscking great piece of code. My video compression stuff drops out 20% faster than it does under GCC 3.1. On an AMD chip, and it has specific flags to compile for P4 so god alone knows how fast that would be. All this is before we start to take advantage of the built in vectorisation (that actually sucks a fair bit), or change my source in any way.

      Something that's fun, for the geeks out there (what am I doing, this is slashdot) is to turn the optimisation up to full whack but leave the debug symbols in .... Jeez, it does some clever shit.

      Dave

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
  9. Is Intel ICC 7.0 ABI compatible with GCC 3.2 ABI? by truth_revealed · · Score: 2

    The GCC 3.2 C++ compiler is known to have some ABI conformance issues that prevent it from claiming 100% IA32 ABI compability. So the question is: does ICC 7.0 match GCC 3.2's C++ ABI exactly (bug for bug) or does it match the offical IA32 C++ ABI standard (thus rendering it incompatible with GCC 3.2)?

  10. Compile Kernel by Screaming+Lunatic · · Score: 2

    Has anyone attempted to compile the kernel with the Intel Compiler?

    1. Re:Compile Kernel by WasterDave · · Score: 2

      It's apparently been done within Intel, but they had to do some wacky patches to make it a goer.

      Dave

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
  11. Re:Is Intel ICC 7.0 ABI compatible with GCC 3.2 AB by rhost89 · · Score: 2

    I would think that it would match GCC bug for bug, if it didnt match those "Features" one for one, then it wouldnt be 100% compatible. Besides, if they wanted to make it 100% IA32 ABI compatible, they would have just written the compiler that way and say its more standards complient then GCC.

    --
    I will bend your mind with my spoon