Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers
ChaoticCoyote writes "I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and "state-of-the-product" reviews. The new article replaces an older piece I published in late 2002. This
new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the quality of Linux compilers."
well, GCC has one thing going for it - it's open source - and that's why I'm sticking with it. XD
FP?
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Even if the Intel compiler is faster, it's best not to get in the habit of becoming locked into any proprietary platform. How likely is it that features on which one could come to depend will be kept available on free platforms, much less future processors not made or controlled by Intel?
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Actually there are. LCC and TinyC come to mind. They're not used much in production [well LCC was reborn as LCC-Win32 for a while] but really GCC is the better choice.
:-)
The problem with the "good old days" was that as my friend Dave Dunfield said once "C compilers are a dime a dozen".
Just because you had a dozen C compilers for your 8086 doesn't mean you were better off. In fact most compilers for the 86 were crap [e.g. smallC, byteC, Zortech, paradise, etc...]. In fact the only half-way decent 86 compilers I recall are Turbo C [v3.01 was ok] and Micro-C [by Dave Dunfield so maybe I'm a bit biased there...].
Note I'm not saying more compilers is bad. The problem is like any field "new" doesn't imply better. You have to tackle problems and answer them.
For instance, GCC is rather large and can be slow/memhog on some files [C++ in particular]. A viable competitor for Linux would be one which optimizes decently while not being such a hog. It could pitch in when you can't build a file [say from VisualBoyAdvance which requires ~1GB of ram to build with GCC 3.4.2]...
For the most part though, contributing to GCC makes more sense than writing your own compiler. First off, GCC is a "standard". So you're likely to get a huge audience that way. Second, GCC is already well established. It's a very good suite of tools and frankly hard to compete with. Third, you'll save a lot of time.
For all intents and purposes you could change your argument to why do "linux" boxes only run the Linux kernel? I mean for all intents and purposes you could write your own kernel that was interoperable and use instead. For the same reason why contributing to GCC is a good idea so is contributing to the kernel [instead of writing your own] is a good idea.
One last caveat before I send this post. I do agree though that writing such said tools [kernels or compilers in this case] are a good idea for educational purposes. It means a lot to know how to write a functional [and ideally half-way decent] compiler even if it only targets one platform and covers only part of a language.
phew...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The hostility mystifies me. I'm a semi-active participant in the GCC mailing list, and the people who work on GCC are very helpful, open, and communicative. Some even thank me for my QA efforts.
I don't see that my article is negative about GCC; in fact, I'm very clear that Intel's compiler isn't a replacement for GCC, and that GCC is a fine product. Maybe the complainers can't read?
All about me
Wolfram has some interesting points, but I think his ego has gotten in the way of good science. With his "New Kind of Science", Wolfram hasn't really "invented" anything; he's mostly implying meaning where it may or may not exist.
On the other hand, I do believe that higher order derives from basic, simple, underlying processes that combine in great complexity. Turning that supposition into real science is something I hope to see happen in the next century.
All about me
Who cares about memory when hard drives are so slow? Reading from laptop HDs is especially painful and binary size does come into play.
Time makes more converts than reason