Slashdot Mirror
IBM Releases Compiler for Power4 and G5
davids-world.com writes "IBM offers its optimized XLC compiler not just for Intel CPUs, but also for its own G5 processor (article in German at Heise). Unlike gcc, it is optimized for the G5 and achieves a major boost in speed, as first results show. I guess we will have to compare the new benchmark data (once available) with the data we get with the optimized Intel compiler for Xeon. The compiler is available for download now."
Sure, there might be no good reason to merge IBM's compiler technology into GCC, but I can dream, can't I?
worthless if it's not gcc compatible to compile the kernal.
So will this new compiler speed up the process of porting Duke Nukem Forever to the Mac?
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
.....for Steve Jobs to have new benchmarks for the Mac Expo in Paris in mid September? great! more fuel on the fire.
Does it integrate with ProjectBuilder, XCode or CodeWarrior?
I don't know, you tell me. If not, who will use it?
AndY
Lest anyone forget, Apple beat Intel in real world benchmarks... so the PC fanboys cried that SPEC benchmarks are the real measurement to gague speed... (probably because the comparisons were much closer when conducted this way). When SPEC benchmarks were displayed, these same fanboys cried that Intel's compiler wasn't used (instead the same compiler between platforms). Apple replied that its fairer to normalize the compiler between platforms and that while Intel could have achieved higher results when their compiler was used, Apple could do the same. So, here is that compiler. When/if the G5 outperforms Intel's best, what will the fanboys rally cry be next?
Are they porting it to SCO?
What is slashdot?
This is a preview beta. What will the final product be released under?
>So will this new compiler speed up the process of porting Duke Nukem Forever to the Mac?
Sorry to burst your bobble, but there's a reason why the game name's Duke Nukem *Forever*. That's the amount of time it will take to make it.
And is there a particular reason why IBM couldn't apply their work towards gcc? So much for the whole open-source, contribute-to-the-community philosophy.
I'm personally rather tired of companies which consider "contributing to the open-source community" to be "lets send in drivers for our proprietary hardware which only we will ever need." That's NOT contributing to the community, that's getting your foot into the kernel.
I know Watson labs has made many contributions to GCC over the years..and I'm not naive enough to think Big Evil Corporations aren't out for their own interests...but it's still a shame they couldn't have used gcc as a base.
Please help metamoderate.
They optimized XLC for intel at all. I knew they did for the PPC but not intel.
Is there some good reason why IBM doesn't just improve gcc? I mean, apple uses gcc; free software users use gcc.. Gcc is a complete compiler suite.
Why didn't they just submit some patches? : )
Liberty.
located here says that people are seeing nearly a twofold increase in both G4's and G5's. I lifted this next spec directly from their discussion: (XL improvement over Absoft and GCC 3.3): Type of Code G4 G5 Scalar +70% +210% Vector +40% +70% _If this holds that places his _2.0GHz G5 (single)_=254 at _787__ Note also that the _P4 2.66_ is _255_. This is a big deal. Let's just hope they use this to compile the OS.
I, for one, welcome our new IBM overlords.
Ok, now that's out of the way, let's get back to real comments.
I guess we will have to compare the new benchmark data (once available) with the data we get with the optimized Intel compiler for Xeon
Yeah we need fuel for lame ass my mac is better than your pc flamewars.
I'd imagine one could cook up code to make whichever machine they want look "faster".
Who gives a rats ass anymore.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The new IBM compiler should rectify the situation. Apple will not need to manipulate the SPEC scores by hiding behind the GCC compiler. In the past, Apple stuck with the GCC compiler because it causes the Pentium to perform much worse than it would perform on code compiled with an Intel-provided compiler.
Of course, both the Power4 (and derivatives like the PowerPC 970) and the Pentium IV crush the UltraSPARC in performance. The new IBM compiler is yet in another nail in the coffin of the UltraSPARC.
Xcode, the new compiler/IDE, which is based on gcc, is also optimized for the G5.
For more information, see Apple's Xcode site.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
GCC's whole purpose is to be the most portable compiler possible, not the best performing on any particular architecture.
XLC has a different set of design goals, and the internal architecture of the the compiler is different enough from GCC that there wouldn't be much point in trying to graft them together.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Having used the xLC compiler (on AIX 4 and 5), I can say that it is a very nice compiler. It's probably one of the most strict ANSI-compliant compilers I've used. It also has some nice architecture tuning optimizations. If this new version speeds up the G5, then you can count on future versions giving even better increases.
This is very good news for Apple-people.
It is good to see IBM ending the habit of charging extra for the C compiler. AIX hasn't bundled the compiler since 3.2.5.
The top 5 questions/posts from slashdotters:
1) Is it open source, I didn't RtFA?
2) Why isn't it open source?
3) Will they release it for Linux on the ppc?
4) What does this have to do with SCO?
5) Apple is dead and these are flawed stats flamewar.
I'm too lazy to come up with a sig that is good enough to be the same everytime, so you can just read this instead. You can try and rid your braincells of this text, but it's pretty much stuck there now.
I know everyone wants to know why they did not just contribute to GCC, but seriously people, I imagine they have their reasons.
Perhaps they wanted something done in a timly manner without waiting for the GCC people to accept their patches. Perhaps they felt a more elegant solution could be achieved by building their own compiler from scratch. Maybe they think GCC is a piece of crap (which for high performance computing, it is).
Just because IBM support open source does not mean they are obligated to do everything for the sole purpose of advancing the movement.
Finkployd
What's a "real-world" benchmark? Comparing the function of photoshop on mac vs. pc, when it's developed natively for the mac? That's not really fair. It's simply not the same code. We could take any of the many programs made natively on PC (which are then ported to mac) and do the same trick.
so the PC fanboys cried that SPEC benchmarks are the real measurement to gague speed... (probably because the comparisons were much closer when conducted this way).
And I'm sure that the macheads don't favor the "photoshop test" for the same reason? We need some objectivity here. Nothing wrong with a fair benchmark, and I'll go on record as always preferring a benchmark, regardless of who it favors.
Apple replied that its fairer to normalize the compiler between platforms and that while Intel could have achieved higher results when their compiler was used
Why fairer? Shouldn't tests use whatever compiler will *actually be used*? If apple/IBM made a chip without a decent compiler to support it, that's their problem. I'd say it was fair to use Intel's compiler for intel's chip. Now it will be fair to use IBM's compiler for IBM's chip. Also interesting was how you suspect the "fanboys" of being biased when they wanted benchmarks instead of "real-world" tests, but Apple just "realized that it's fairer" to do something that benefited them. It works both ways.
Apple could do the same. So, here is that compiler. When/if the G5 outperforms Intel's best, what will the fanboys rally cry be next?
That's perfectly fair. Let's use the best compiler for each machine. I've no problem with it.
Now, to ensure a completely fair test, let's make sure Apple uses both machines as they ship, and everything will be fine. But the pc "fanboys" as you call them were right to criticize a test in which Apple modified the machines, both their own and Dell's, fom the way they shipped. The changes it made to the Apple were beneficial, the ones to the Dell were all detrimental. That's not science.
I honestly like Apples, this is just a matter of scientific method to me. I really could give a shit who wins.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Oh, how I long for the Trolls of yesteryear.
I wonder how the AltiVec support in XLC for OSX compares to that in GCC?
This is actually really important. One of the big reasons that the Intel C compiler spanks every other available x86 compiler is that its SSE/SIMD support is, in the words of one of my assembly-programmer friends, "awe-inspiring." Like, unrolling entire program loops and replacing them with single SIMD instructions.
As far as I know, pretty much all of the AltiVec/VMX support in GCC was contributed by Apple and Motorola, and prior to the ppc970, IBM has never produced a PPC CPU with AltiVec instructions, so prior versions of XLC have never had to support it. So I'll be really curious to hear how it stacks up against GCC's Altivec.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I mean, if they have other tools within the compiler, which are covered by restrictive licenses like SCO's trying to foist, they might be barred from releasing that technology. Some of the optimizations may be covered under patent, which they don't own outright.
Second, the people involved in that compiler are not exactly "clean-room" when it comes to submitting patches to gcc without intimate knowledge of those other methods/IP....
Last thing IBM needs now is a REAL case of leaking information which is covered under patent/IP or whatever protection.....I expect them to release all the details, just expect that they will only provide factual information rather than "how-to".....
I am not a software dveloper...so maybe I don't know how it works. I was thinking that perhaps they just wanted to build their compiler, without waiting for their patches to be approved (or not) and having to deal with the time it takes. With their own compiler they can work on it right there, in house and in full control of how it is done.
But I guess they could of just released a fork of gcc how they wanted it though. Who knows.
It looks really good.
Does it support Obj C though?
Can it compile Cocoa code?
Is there some good reason why IBM doesn't just improve gcc? I mean, apple uses gcc; free software users use gcc.
This is IBM's product. IBM doesn't sell MacG5's, they sell AIX based workstations based on their POWER and PPC chips. XLC is the compiler for AIX, so it makes sense for them to optimize the compiler for their products. If Apple gets a side benefit, than good for Apple, but it's not like IBM did this for the primary benefit of Apple.
When SPEC benchmarks were displayed, these same fanboys cried that Intel's compiler wasn't used (instead the same compiler between platforms) ...
Pot - Kettle - Black. You got the whole fanboy thing reversed.
You have to be an Apple fanboy, a gcc fanboy, an Apple PR/Marketing person, or a non-technical person to believe GCC normalizes results. GCC is not a constant, the quality of it's generated code varies from one architecture to the next. On some architectures it is great, on others it is so-so. Intel's compiler is available for Linux and some apps show dramatic improvements.
Apple's current comparison is fair in a marketting context, it only fails in an engineering context. When we compare Intel compiled SPEC on a Pentium 4 800 MHz FSB with dual DDR-400 against an IBM compiled SPEC on a G5 we'll finally have a truly fair comparison. No cherry picking compilers or CPUs (another problem with the current Apple claim, but fair in the marketing world), just the best available all around.
clearly, this is a troll. A really, really funny troll.
New IBM compilers make power for the Mac G5 steam
/c't)
Now powerfully momentum comes into the Mac-G5-Szene : IBM brings out the legendary C/C++ - and FORTRAN compilers with power PC and in particular G5-Optimierung now not only for AIX, but also for Linux and Mac OS X. Beta versions of the compilers (C/C++ 6,0 and FORTRAN 8,1) for Mac OS X are available already for the Download for a 60-Tage-Test.
Comparisons of the compilers with SPEC CPU bench mark show partially almost dramatic performance paste run gene opposite gcc/g77 3,3 -- however still measured on the Power4. In addition, already FR C C measured conservatively with the first presentation of the PowerPC-970-Prozessors of IBM (937 SPECint2000 and 1051 SPECfp2000) for the 1,8-GHz-PPC970 were already far higher than those, which Steve job indicated with the spectacular G5-Mac-Einfuehrung . Measured with GCC 3,3 and gnawing FORTRAN came VeriTest only on 800 SPECint2000 and 840 SPECfp2000 for the PPC970 with 2 GHz.
Above all the optimization for the two floating decimal point units existing in the Power4 and PPC970 probably succeeded to IBM (in particular with the FORTRAN compiler) far better than the GNU colleague. With the two FPUs the PPC970 from architecture would have to be opposite the Intel Pentium 4 in the floating decimal point performance clear in the advantage.
Also AltiVec is supported for the PPC970 and "generic power PC" (SWITCHES ppvc ) -- whether thereby as with Intel compilers an automatic Vektorisierung is with connected also, is still unclear. Such Autovektorisierung could cause a performance jump again. Also GNU set this technology for AltiVec as aim of the project.
Interestingly enough the IBM compilers differentiate still between G5 and PPC970, possibly optimize the compiler with G5 particularly on Apples CROSS bar SWITCH and take out so still another Quaentchen more performance. ( as
How are you sooooo cool that you have a dual-2ghz G5 before it's even shipping? Funny, funny bullshit!
Is the word "fanboy" used by anyone but fanboys?
pinkployd, you anoy me.
Do you have any kind of benchmark to back that silly assertion up? Can you even define "high performance computing" for me? If you mean scientific computing, gcc is in wide use. Do a little searching and you will find goodies like this. I'd love to see the licensing fees for a 1,000 node cluster. Put up or shut up, please.
It's all nice and good of IBM to make a compiler for their chips. I hope they can be persuaded to donate chunks to gcc and think that it would help drive their own sales. It would be silly to hold their own work on C and FORTRAN against them.
You, taking advantage of the news to flame GCC and all the good people who work on it, just shows what a nasty little troll you are. Why not spend your time constructively? I'd love to know what compilers you use to get your work done. Hey, you might even contribute to GCC in your spare time. Until then, piss off.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The IBM compiler dis some wild instruction reordering which made the optimized compiled code really hard to understand, but somehow better fitted to the processor's pipeline structure. Fortunately the only thing that broke when I turned on the optimizer was the "marching ants" used for selection, and that was the result of some way-too-fancy-casting of Pattern pointers that fooled the optimizer. I suspect the IBM compilers will continue to reign if performance is the goal.
this new variant of the Troll.Mac virus actually had me chuckling to myself at work, give it a funny.
Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
It really is that simple.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
A 486 with 8Mb of ram that has the blaster virus must have either Win 2k or XP on there (perhaps Nt4 as well?) which is impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
Anyway, grandparent post is an interesting change to the regular Mac troll that appears in every thread.
Has anyone determined whether Taco has written this troll post into slashcode or if it's an actual human person positing them?
Worst. Karma Whore. Ever.
Anyways, back to your problem. If you copy with the shell or with any other file manager on the Mac it will be considerably faster.
As for Adobe Acrobat, I don't know what is wrong there. I installed it in just a few minutes without any problems.
However I must ask if you are for real. Sorry but just today have reports of dual G5's come out. That you "recently upgraded" sounds a bit doubtful. I don't know anyone with a dual G5. That you say your iPod stopped working and Safari isn't working during a copy makes me think either you have a flawed pre-release machine or are just blowing air. My apologies if you are legit. Just doesn't sound right.
Check this post out if you need an answer to your question.
The speed could be infinite. IBMs new complier is powered by rainbows, dreams, wishes, magic gumdrop sprinkles, and imagination. Theoretically speaking, you could bypass the rainbows, dreams, and wishes; while using a wrapper to off-load the burden of the magic gumdrop sprinkles to the flux capacitor. Then you could primarily focus your development on imagination... which would allow you to compile and run applications at a speed predetermined by your imagination.
I've also heard that the wishes and dreams can be fairly powerful tools as well. However, results may vary due to unfulfilled wishes and crushed dreams.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I'm curious how you could have a dual 2GHz machine, which hasn't started shipping yet...
I'm interested - *are* there winzealots who don't live in Redmond? I've never known anyone who gave half a shit about their windows. I've known PC-zealots who happen to run windows, but they're usually graphics-card zealots, or case-mod guys.
But I have yet to meet a true fan of the windows way of life.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The dual 2GHz G5's aren't even shipping you stupid fucking troll!
The XLC compiler doesn't produce code for "Intel chips" (at least not IA32).
It didn't when I worked there and nothing on the referenced IBM webpage indicates otherwise.
Well, almost. Just as soon as those dual proc G5s actually hit the market, then they will have beat a single proc P4 3.0 GHz system from last November. Whoopdee frickin' doo.
You Apple fan-boys will get tight pants over anything Apple does, won't you? In two months some PC architecture will beat the G5s in all of the same benchmarks. And 3 months after that they'll beat their own numbers, and so on and so forth until Apple finally comes out on top again in 2010, for a month or so.
Of course from 2004-2010 the Appleheads will claim that pretty colors and ease of use are everything. Unix!
Will these compilers let me write 64-bit programs? If so, I'm buying a G5 NOW. If not... when?
(OK so that's two questions)
The problem is that the increase in execution speed is matched by a corresponding inflation of Steve Job's ego.
Huh? I can't speak for any "pc fanboys," if such a thing exists, but I would be simply interested, from a scientific standpoint, if Apple's made up all that ground after a long period of Motorola being pretty bad. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really care which one wins.
Just for the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, are you a mac "fanboy?" I myself use both platforms (apple and intel) regularly, counting Linux, BSD, and Windows on the PC.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
amen on the SIMD comment. not being a HPC guy, i hadn't realized until recently that intel had absorbed the kuck & associates team (the folks who used to do vectorizing compilers for supers, back when people cared about supers). it is just too cool to see this just pop up when you type "make":
Sound_to_Pitch.c(211) : (col. 7) remark: LOOP WAS VECTORIZED.
IBM's benchmarks comparing gcc and xlc on SPECint2000 and SPECfp2000 seem not very meaningful to me. First of all, note that both -O2 and -O3 are semantics preserving in gcc, while -O4 and -O5 in xlc are not. That is, in particular on the SPECint2000 benchmarks, the xlc compiler is faster simply because it changes the behavior of your program. The same may even be true for xlc compiling SPECfp2000 at lower optimization settings; the Intel compiler on P4, for example, achieves large gains in performance on some benchmarks by inlining math functions that gcc uses a library for--because the P4 instructions aren't quite right.
In my experience, you can usually match the performance of those other "fast" compilers with gcc by using the "-f" and "-m" flags. The main difference is that gcc forces you to be explicit about which semantic changes the compiler is allowed to make, rather than lumping things together under some generic "-O5" setting. That's a good thing.
(Note that my comments apply to gcc; g77 may well be a much worse performer than commercial Fortran compilers even though it shares the same back-end with gcc. That affects the SPECfp2000 scores. Fortran just doesn't seem to be a high priority for gcc.)
are a gullible idiot AND I slept with your wife and/or significant other.
Or roll it into their Xcode (does Apple even use Xcode for work on OSX)? I don't know much about compilers so I'd be curious to know if Apple and Mac developers could make use of this new compiler from IBM?
This a specialized compiler that optimizes for IBM's CPUs. I don't know of you have heard this yet, but IBM happens to be in the business of selling CPUs. Part of this business involves having many CPU competitors, most importantly Intel. Now why would IBM spend all this money designing a CPU and a compiler to compete against Intel, only to turn around and give away compiling technology that would help the enemy? They might as well write just Intel a check. The main rule of busines is "you don't help your enemy defeat you". If Intel is to create better compiler tech that will make their CPUs a better value, then they're gonna have to spend their own money. If you were in a contest, would YOU give your competitors any special abilities you had developed?
Bottom line: this compiler is to help the PPC line gain tech value against Intel. To let it out into the open would be negating any tech gains.
Umm, yes, IBM does contribute to GCC, but that doesn't mean that they'll stop the development of their high performance, highly competitive compiler that has several years of development and optimizations behind it. Think about it, would they really just abandon all the manhours, resources and intellectual property that have sunken into it and migrate, just like that, to some compiler that is just now becoming competitive with other, propertiary compilers ?
In the past, Apple stuck with the GCC compiler because that's what they're using on their machine. I don't see why (some) people have been so tremendously uptight about this; it's not like their benchmarks showed the G5 dunking the P4's head in the toilet and mopping the floor with it, they just showed it being competitive. GCC may be mediocre, but it's mediocre on all platforms. This may not be the most spiffy way to try to eliminate compiler effects from a test and it may not even be the Official SPEC Way, but it's still probably a better way to do it than to say "go ahead, compare our scores with GCC against Intel's special compiler with the '-optimize-for-spec-test' flag" like the loudest critics seem to think they should have.
And why is Intel struggling to make even incremental performance boosts to the their Pentium lines? Why are they throwing back their delivery schedules for Prescott, etc.? The Pentium is near its EOL, the G5 is only starting. Intel gambled on the new Itanium architecture and it is not working out for them either. MSFT doesn't plan to put in 64-bit extensions into XP till its SP2 later in 2004, so AMD is screwed as well. The Wintel world is carrying the x86 and Win32 monkey on its back and it is crwling under the weight. Longhorn the solution? We will have to wait till 2006. In the meantime, IBM and Apple are moving like a race car.
The main rule of business is to not let Anime Cat Girls run your company!!!!!1
You supar wheeler-dealer you...
>>>
against Intel, only to turn around and give away compiling technology that would help the enemy? They might as well write just Intel a check. The main rule of busines is "you don't help your enemy defeat you". Harvesting IP addys, etc. If Intel is to create better compiler tech that will make their CPUs a better value, then they're gonna have to spend their own money. If you were in a contest, would YOU give your competitors any special abilities you had developed?
why you pilin' on IBM without having a clue? IBM wanted to give back. The GCC folks wouldn't have none of it: GCC is supposed to be platform neutral, and the G5 is such a different chip that the changes would have been too drastic for the GCC people.
Interesting, as I heard it they did some things to make floating point calculations slower. Makes me wonder why they didn't even try a stock Dell? A perfectly fair comparison, yet I haven't heard it resported at all.
from using the same compiler
That was to benefit apple, at the time the intel compiler was much faster. This changes now, with parent story, obviously.
Get over it. x86 hasn't always been the reigning speed champ.
And I would say the same to you. Is it possible to actually discuss this story without accusing people of being in denial? I *don't care* who wins, it's about experimental methodology for me.
And this is how all the apple posts go:
PC user: I don't know - isn't it possible that the apple isn't the fastest machine on the planet?
Apple user: Shutup you PC-fanboy zealot! You need to get out of denial and face the fact that the apple is faster. x86 sucks!
I mean, why is it impossible to rationally discuss this story with mac users?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Most convicted internet pedophiles run Windows. No Joke.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Anyone else find it ironic that all the recent g5 stories are labeled with the picture of the g4 chip? =)
Interesting to note that Objective C is much closer to raw C than C++, and as such yes. You can do some stuff with it that's worthwhile.
Also note that David Stes released his POC, which is an Objective-C->C compiler with a runtime he uses (actually it's a bit more than Objective-C) to run ObjC code today.
Apple will probably use this new compiler to recompile their CoreFoundation stuff, which is all C stuff that Carbon and Cocoa tap into. So, a simple recompile of CoreFoundation should net good speed improvements on G4s and MUCH better results on a G5.
So even if IBM chooses not to directly support Objective-C, Apple can still benefit in the short term while they rustle up their very own ObjC->C system (which is NOT a very challenging feat, considering the ObjC runtime is a relatively simple-to-use C library).
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
The this is a new compiler for MacOS X. I am wondering if gcc was used to compile xLC for MacOS X.
Because little or no commercial software will ever be compiled for Intel chips using gcc, rather Intel's compiler. It would be like saying apple should force their system to emulate 32 bits since that's all the PC has. I see the availablity of a completely superior compiler to be a fair advantage. Even now that IBM's made a kick-ass compiler for Apple.
And it seems to me that you can't get over the fact that maybe, just maybe, Intel isn't the top of heap (again).
I have no idea where you get this from. Did you miss what I said last post? Can people actually just discuss this? I've said it twelve times - I don't care who "wins." I'm a scientist, and as such, I considered Apple's methodology deceptive. It doesn't affect me as a computer user. Put it this way - I've never been the guy with the fastest computer anyway. In fact, I don't own an Intel. I run an AMD-900, so that should tell you something about how much of a speed freak I am.
I'm one of the few Mac fanboys who will admit that for the last two years or so, the G4 (#@!#$! Motorola) and corresponding architecture has lagged behind the Intel world in terms of raw speed.
Hey, that's great. But you indeed are a fanboy, as evidenced by the fact that you overly criticize those who aren't apple fans.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
IIRC, Apple compiles OS X on gcc 3. Would it take a lot of work for them to use the new IBM compiler and therefore take better advantage of the G5? Are there too many differences are between gcc and XLC to allow the open source community to continue to work on Darwin, while Apple uses XLC for performance?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
(Disclaimer: speculation)
If IBM were to work with Apple and include Objective-C (as a C superset) and Apple were to market this as an alternative compiler on the Mac platform, would that be a good or a bad thing?
Listen to me comquat-face.
Gay does most-certainly not mean a reference to homosexuality.
Gay=Happy and there is no way you can change a static string.
Go ask the 64bit TrollRainbow for Jesus Christ, in the Linuxgames.com "Savage Announcment" forum.
If I go from Mac to Intel, or vice versa, and I'm not the type to pirate everything from friends, warez sources, or p2p, then I have to buy (prices from Amazon.com, rounded to nearest dollar)...
So the cost to switch is:
To Mac from Win: hardware + 1883 software
To Win from Mac: hardware + 1857 software
And that's just the basics for a good multimedia development set-up. If you code, create Flash/Shockwave, etc., then you can add on another $500-1000 for other tools... or more.
Bundles and other incentives can bring it down, but this is not an inconsequential cost. Even if you could get a 10% faster PC for the same price as a Mac, or a 10% faster Mac for the same price as a PC, you have to ask yourself how much that 10% is really worth to you.
How often will you utilize all the capabilities of the machine and stretch the system past the capabilities of the alternative? How many hours of labor will the system save you over time?
And when all is said and done, you can scream over benchmarks and which is the better OS all you like. But they're totally meaningless.
(Mac fans can claim Windows has an inherently higher TCO, but let's face it, that's if the user is someone who thinks GNU is a Milton Bradley game that succeeded Gnip-Gnop. The rest of us know that a well-educated Windows user can avoid many of its pitfalls.)
Each time I've upgraded my hardware, there's one question I ask when I consider whether to switch platforms... What's the bottom line? How much more would this cost or save?
When I worked it out in 1993, a 486 DX2/50 by mail-order beat an education priced Quadra 40 from the university. Since then, I've invested much more in software that I had as a student... Even though the hardware costs are becoming less of a factor, the software costs have become more of a factor to compensate.
If I won the lottery, I'd buy a Mac and all the cool software I wanted. But barring that, I'll be looking carefully at Prescott versus Athlon 64 in the coming months, and making my choice in the Wintel world because that's where my software is.
So, though this compiler news is cool if you're a Mac User, because it makes your platform better *for you*, the arguments about whether Mac beats WinTel are a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Start a happiness pandemic
Shitty nvidida geforce fx 5200 for the pc(64 mb version)... $60...for the mac... $120...
Hmmm... Pie...
The Pentium scores you listed are from Pentium CPU's (not the xeons which did slightly higher) which are incapable of dual cpu operation. This was against a dual cpu system that was probably optimized well for dual use.
Whats interesting to note that the single pentium machine scored 836 in int performance and the xeons (dual machines) scored 840... Almost no performance increase from going dual here.
Hmmm... Pie...
It's taco that's doing this. Everyone knows that if they want to laugh, they read at -1. If everyone wants be mis-informed, they read at +5. If everyone wants to learn, they are told by Theo Teh Ratd to RTFM.
I guess I am missing something but if I go out and buy a new Power Mac dual G5 running Mac OS X then how the heck does it run stuff complied for G4 (a Motorola chip)? It boggles my mind!
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Further, it didn't originate from the Mac world OR the PC, but from SGI-space. It's had time to be optimised for x86, and Apple have also had a crack at it (at least for V3).
I, for one, would welcome new ove^H^H^Hbenchmarks I could relate to.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
What I wonder is whether this compiler will be used in future versions of xCode. If it is, in fact, significantly faster than GCC, it seems logical that Apple would wants it as part of their own developer tools.
In addition, I wonder what this will do for Metroworks' CodeWarrior compiler?
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
I believe that AMD developed HyperTransport, just as Apple developed FireWire, Intel developed USB, and PCI, and Texas Instruments developed NuBus.
Event: Somebody actually does something realted to some Apple product.
Slashdot reaction: Unless it comes in GCC today and fixes me a martini and picks my nose and sings the Hallelujah chorus and comes with a big check, what damn good is it, anyway?
Event: Somebody at Microsoft says that they might do something in a couple of years if they feel like it.
Slashdot reaction: Hah! Luser! See, Microsoft already did it.
Event: Somebody decides that it might be possible to do something cool if they could only get cheap enough buckytubes to wire the brains of ants to the FPU in Python emulated in Perl emulated in ELisp. And it will run on Linux. Except nobody is going to do it, really, but it would be cool.
Slashdot reaction: Linux is ready for the desktop! Linux is ready for the desktop!
LOL
pseudo mod "+20 Funny".
Really, that's awesome stuff. You should save that in a more permanent form and/or bombard your friends with it.
It's great because it cuts to the core of the problem I have with New Age style rhetoric and all the substance they lack.
Xcode is just an IDE for GCC; it's not a separate compiler.
Actually, over 70% of Adobe's Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign sales are for the Mac.
I've read this same statistic too, however that figure (70%) is for the three applications as a whole. The majority of Photoshop sales are for Windows, while the majority of Illustrator and InDesign sales are for Mac. All together, 70% of those sales are for Mac.
BTW, rename the files to vacpp.60.macos.beta.dmg (C/C++ toolkit) and xlf.81.macos.beta.dmg (fortran) if your browser does not handle the ftp redirect well. If LaunchServices opens the file with the wrong application when you double click on the disk image, drag the file onto the Disk Copy icon in Applications:Utilities instead.
If anyone would like to take the initiative and has access to a G5, IBM offers these instructions for running SPEC2000 on a G5 using the optimized Fortran compiler.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
This makes me think of those leaflets some whino'll push in your hand trying to prove They DIDN'T Land on the MOON.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
This compiler is specifically to help out the PPC chip, not Linux. Linux can benefit from it, by compiling Linux FOR PPC only. They want you to have a reason to buy PPC over Intel. If this was released in a way that whatever new techniques the developed would also help Intel, than what's the point? The advantage gets nullified.
Use the compiler. Compile Linux, whatever. But do it on a PPC chip. That's what they want, for you to buy PPC, not Intel. THAT's why they came up with a way to further enhance PPC. Sales for IBM, not Intel.
Trust me, the day proprietariness gets outlawed, that's the day I stop coming up with ideas. I'll just be a leech, and let YOU do the work.
Can't we talk about Macs on Slashdot without having to talk about whether they're overpriced or slow or whatever? I have a Mac, I like it, I use it for lots of things. I'd like to be able to discuss it, rather than just read x86 users' posts about how much better their platform is & why. This article is about a complier, not comparison shopping. Could we stick to that please??
Looking at all these pretty graphs, and knowing that in most cases sane people will restrict their optimization to -O2 (-O3 and above are usually unsafe: not as well tested, may change the program behaviour, cut corners with IEEE math, etc), GCC is still looking pretty good.
In most cases in both FP and Integer, GCC matches XLC up to -O3, sometimes a bit slower, sometimes a bit faster.
I applaud the work of the GCC people. GCC is the most versatile and portable C compiler, and it's not half bad at optimizing either.
Thanks too to IBM. Their compiler will surely prove useful in a lot of cases, and a new compiler to try and benchmark is always good news!
Back when the P4 was somewhat new, Toms Hardware did a test on MPEG-4 video encoding. Well the results were that Athlons beat, rather badly, P3s and P4s. Well Intel thought something was screwy here and found that the MS VC complier had been used. Since theirs plugs into VC, they got the source for the MPEG-4 program and recopiled it. Simply recompiling it produced amazing results. The P4's speed jumpes 3.7x, the P3 2x. Even the Athlons doubled their speed. Now this was just using the code written for the x87. Intel then wrote some SSE optimised code that increased it further. However the impressive part was just the recomplie not only increased the speed on their processors, but on their competitors too.
. ht ml
Now this code was written for the Intel compiler, it wasn't written by Intel (they wrote their own optimizations, which ran even faster), they just ran it through their compiler.
The Apple/Dell SPEC results also jive with this. The big difference between the two is the use of the Intel compiler. It really DOES do a better job, loath though some peopel are to admit it. I don't understand why, one would expect a company's own compiler to do the best job, but some peopel seem to hate the Intel compiler based on principle or something.
At any rate it really is a good compiler, regardless of if you acknowledge that or not.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20001125/index
Holy shit, I just fell out of my chair laughing. Someday in 2030.... I've just recently upgraded from a Mac G12 AI to help me at my freelance gig where I copy a 40 Terrabyte file from one folder on the holographic drive to another. On my Pentium 5 this operation takes only 5 days. I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problmes I've encountered while working on various macs, but suffice it to say that I have absolutely nothing better to do than continously post this stupid comment everytime I get a chance.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
May not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have. For now.
[notices "HAIL IBM" sign taped up, tears it down]
Oh, yes, by the way, the spacecraft still in extreme danger, may not make it back, attempting risky reentry, bla bla bla bla bla bla. We'll see you after the movie.
Why won't the kernel compile on IBM's compiler?
For maximum portability, surely the most of the kernel should be written in ANCI C (aside from the assembly language parts, of course) and not use any non-standard gcc extensions.
> Eh, I wouldn't say that GCC is "worthless", it's just that its worth lies in an :)
2 000-20030728-02428.html
and2 000-20030728-02417.html
> area that has nothing to do with high-performance computing. Or even > mid-performance computing.
GCC is really fast.
Look at some SPEC_FP numbers:
(1) http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu
(2) http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu
The c++ benchmarks (177.mesa,179.art,183.equake,188.ammp) were compiled with ICC (1) and gcc (2).
At two out of those four benchmarks (50%), GCC 3.3 is FASTER than the best Intel Compiler.
At least for Opteron (and Athlon) GCC is really good. Opteron with GCC and PGI Fortran compiler is excellent suited for High-Performance-Computing.
A big Thanks to the SuSE team for porting GCC to AMD64 and doing some usefull optimizations. http://www.x86-64.org/contributors/gcc
they're doing the OSS community some good by flicking SCO off their suit like an annoying little fly.
funny *and* insightful!
ibm does not offer its xlc compiler for intel chips -- that's simply wrong in the story, sorry for that!
From the GCC home page :
Major decisions about GCC are made by the steering committee, guided by the mission statement.
The mission statement (below) suggests that the main aim of GCC is to attract developers in order to forward the aims of the FSF. Thus choosing use or develop GCC is an overtly political act promoting the agenda of a lobby group.
Portability, well, multiple architectures is mentioned in the overture but not in the Design and Development Goals.
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gccmission.html
The GCC development effort uses an open development environment and supports many other platforms in order to foster a world-class optimizing compiler, to attract a larger team of developers, to ensure that GCC and the GNU system work on multiple architectures and diverse environments, and to more thoroughly test and extend the features of GCC.
Free Software Project
* Supporting the goals of the GNU project, as defined by the FSF.
* Compilers are available under the terms of the GPL.
* Copyrights for the compilers are to be held by the FSF.
* Other components (runtime libraries, testsuites, etc) will be available under various free licenses with copyrights being held by individual authors or the FSF.
* All legal relationships with contributors and users are the responsibility of the FSF.
* Patches must be legally acceptable for inclusion into the GNU project.
Design and Development Goals.
* New languages
* New optimizations
* New targets
* Improved runtime libraries
* Faster debug cycle
* Various other infrastructure improvements
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Is it just me, or is testing an optimized compiler on processors it isn't optimized for a little silly? It's the Intel compiler. It's not going to take advantage of things like 3dnow that the AMD chips use.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
...to get the Opteron to run OS X? One or two-hundred bucks?
;)
I'll have to look into that
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
I remember some Apple fans praising Apple for, more or less, "inventing USB 2.0".
They weren't happy either when I mentioned Intel invented it.
However, Apple does a better job at integrating technology and, periodically, pushes the envelope much further than the PC companies. The interconnects on the G5 are amazing.
What the fuck? Asshole moderators. At least 2 of us have a sense of humor (I was one of the ones who modded it Funny). If I had the ability, I'd mod it back up again. Jesus fucking christ, pull the panties out of your asshole already, lighten up!! It was fucking hilarious! "my freelance gig where I copy a 17 meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder." Priceless!
Soulless assholes.
> Is it just me, or is testing an optimized compiler on
> processors it isn't optimized for a little silly?
No, it's not. That compiler is (in many cases) the best compiler for Opteron. The Intel Compiler is able to optimize for P3-like CPUs and Athlon and Opteron CPUs have many P3 characteristics.
> It's the Intel compiler.
Yes, it is Intel's compiler. But an Opteron with this Intel compiler is faster than an comparable Intel CPU. That's what matters for High Performance Computing.
> It's not going to take advantage of things like 3dnow that the AMD chips use.
It's going to take advantage of things like SSE and SSE2 that the AMD Chip uses. 3Dnow has no real advantage over SSE/SSE2 even on an Opteron.
But if you want, search www.spec.org for some P4 gcc Spec numers and compare them with ICC numbers. ICC is faster, no question, but even there GCC manages to achieve some comparable results. At some sub-benchmarks it is even faster.
They wanted to keep it fully x87 compatible. They had other options they addedd that had vector code in them. that's what's truly amazing. Without using any new instruciton it gained that speed increase.
The G5 could also run Linux
Sorry, but all of those fans require software to run them... software built into OS X. Porting Linux to a G5 is not going to be easy.... unless you want to build your own cooling system.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
This was posted on the www.talkchess.com computer chess forum:
:-) I haven't been able to get Crafty to compile cleanly wih it yet, when I do I will post an update. If you know of any other compiler flags for GCC or the IBM compiler let me know and I will test those too.
Posted by Rick Bischoff (Profile) on August 29, 2003 at 10:04:26:
Hi all,
As you may or may not know, IBM has released their C/C++/Fortran compiler for Mac OS X. Here are some results from running said compiler against GCC with various optimizations-- Tom's simple chess program (TSCP) is used (i.e., the bench command). The machine was my G4 tower (dual 867 w 1 GB Ram):
GCC - "gcc *.c -o tscp_gcc0" produces
Trial NPS Score
1 44101 0.181
2 43977 0.181
3 45197 0.186
IBM - "xlc *.c -o tscp_ibm0":
4 54253 0.223
5 54387 0.224
6 54424 0.224
GCC - "gcc -O *.c -o tscp_gcc1":
7 113632 0.467
8 113609 0.467
9 113797 0.468
IBM - "xlc -O *.c -o tscp_ibm1"
10 138769 0.571
11 138769 0.571
12 138560 0.570
GCC - "gcc -O2 *.c -o tscp_gcc2"
13 121156 0.498
14 120811 0.497
15 121076 0.498
IBM -O2 not tested as man page says it is equivalent to -O
GCC - "gcc -O3 *.c -o tscp_gcc3"
16 119448 0.491
17 119734 0.492
18 120414 0.495
IBM - "xlc -O3 *.c -o tscp_ibm3"
19 150939 0.621
20 150815 0.620
21 149994 0.617
IBM - "xlc -O4 *.c -o tscp_ibm4"
22 167613 0.689
23 167868 0.690
24 168330 0.692
IBM - "xlc -O5 *.c -o tscp_ibm5"
25 168691 0.694
26 168451 0.693
27 168536 0.693
(I ran diff on the gcc executables of the same size and it assures me they are different! That is somewhat unusual?)
Anyway, it looks like the IBM compiler is a sure win over GCC if you are running TSCP
>> You assign to IBM all right, title, and interest (including ownership of copyright) in any data, suggestions, and
>> written materials that 1) is related to Your use of the Program and 2) You provide to IBM.
>Doesn't that mean that they can demand that you transfer the copyrights of code that you compile with it?
What it says is, if
1) You provide data, suggestions, and/or written materials to IBM, and,
2) They are related to your use of the program, then
3) They become the property of IBM.
So if you send IBM a note saying 'This compiler would be MUCH better with a green splash screen,' and then they implement it with a green splash screen, you can't then sue them for stealing your idea.
-Fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Altivec is not supported in beta 6.
/opt/ibmcmp/vacpp/exe/xlCentry" messages. Is there a known problem with using AltiVec instructions in C++ source code?
It understands altivect data types, but cannot
compile any altivec intrinsics.
Too bad. Compiler died on my Altivec code.
Here is info from IBM site.
Question
For C source files the AltiVec support looks good, but attempting to compile C++ source files that use AltiVec instructions doesn't seem to be working. For example, I see many "fatal error in
Answer
The AltiVec support in the C++ compiler is not yet complete. We do not recommend attempting to compile C++ source files that use AltiVec instructions
I've admitted that Apple hasn't held the speed record. But yet you seem unwilling to believe/accept that they may hold it now.
Are you a troll or do you actually possess the world's worst reading comprehension? I've granted that Apple might win since my first freaking post. Do you have selective reading issues or something?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The beta comes with instructions to integrate with both XCode and Project Builder. Just check in: /opt/ibmcmp/vac/6.0/samples/macide.pdf