Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers

Posted by michael on from the consumer-reports dept.

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."

3 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not a lot of selection for Linux compilers, eh? by Jollyeugene · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Other compilers for Linux (Try google before you troll):

    TCC (tiny c compiler).
    Compaq Alpha C compiler.
    OpenWatcom C/C++ compiler
    TenDra C/C++ compiler
    egcs compiler (which merged into gcc- they saw that it had some advantages.)
    ChEmbeddable
    Cint c/c++ interpreter (not exactly a compiler)
    CC65 Commodore C compiler
    Absoft C/C++ Fortran compiler
    lcc

    These all run on linux. Some are open, some are not. GCC is used mainly because it is portable to just about anything-- so there goes your argument of GCC restricting choice. GCC exists to promote choice, and it does this.

    Take your code written for Visual Studio and compile it on Sun. Can't do that with Visual Studio? No MFC on Sun? Your best bet will probably be good old GCC with WINE. So how are you restricted by gcc?

    Now, if you want to make a cross compiler to compete with gcc- one with seperate front ends and back ends, so it can accept multiple languages, and can compile to just about every machine on earth-- then nothing is stopping you. Oh, what is that? Not interested. Neither is anyone else. Programers see no need to duplicate something that has been done well the first time. One good cross compiler is enough- GCC represents a NATURAL MONOPOLY.

  2. Re:3.5 vs. 4.0 by FullMetalAlchemist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tree-SSA is not new, it's new to GCC but the concept of Single Static Assignment itself is ancient and using it for optimizing trees in not new.
    The problem is the GCC codebase is so badly designed it takes major changes to many parts to introduce a very old concept of SSA into it. So you can't take advantage of a generic SSA but have to introduce different patches for the system.

    Back in my university days we did SSA in our own compilers, for a 5 week course! GCC needs a complete rewrite or a switch to something like TenDRA, which right now produces good solid code, but not extremely optimized machinecode. On the other hand TenDRA is really well designed so it would catch up really fast if more people worked on it.

  3. Re:gcc! by adamwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Erm. If you look at the current top500 you'll see that there's a Xeon machine in the top 5.

    Have you actually tried other platforms? The best compiler on a given architecture is usually the chip vendor compiler -- IBM's compiler beats GNU on PPC 970, HP's beats GNU on Alpha, etc.

    Sure you can find the odd piece of code where Gnu will beat vendor compilers but overall, and particularly for large scientific workloads, vendor compilers win for raw speed.