Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

New Intel Compiler Released 35

Posted by Hemos on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:59AM 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."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Intel Compiler Released

Load All Comments

Search 35 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

Is there (Score:1, Funny)

by CableModemSniper ( 556285 ) writes:

an echo [slashdot.org] in here?
Redundant (Score:5, Funny)

by keesh ( 202812 ) writes: on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:04AM (#4751603) Homepage

"though I haven't verified this yet"

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

Share
twitter facebook
Kettle? (Score:3, Funny)

by Trusty Penfold ( 615679 ) writes: <jon_edwards@spanners4us.com> on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:04AM (#4751611) Journal

How long does it take to make coffee [slashdot.org] in that neck of the woods?

Share
twitter facebook
someone still hasn't had his coffee... (Score:2, Funny)

by iosphere ( 14517 ) writes:

Twice [slashdot.org] in the same morning?
- Re:someone still hasn't had his coffee... (Score:3, Interesting)
  
  by sporty ( 27564 ) writes:
  
  Emergency bugfix release? :)
  
  If only companies worked this quick...
compatible? (Score:5, Funny)

by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) writes: on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:07AM (#4751636) Journal

even more GCC-compatible that the last version

shouldn't it be more standards compliant

?

Share
twitter facebook
- Re:compatible? (Score:4, Informative)
  
  by LizardKing ( 5245 ) writes: on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:32AM (#4751847)
  
  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
  
  Parent Share
  twitter facebook
  - Re:compatible? (Score:1)
    
    by moodyj ( 31113 ) writes:
    
    Wait, you mean to say that gcc EMBRACED and EXTENDED the C standard? God Forbid!
    - Re:compatible? (Score:1)
      
      by PretzelAvenger ( 151751 ) writes:
      
      Yes. they did. The nifty thing is that they actually list exactly what extensions, in their documentation, and if you don't mind YOUR compiler going under GPL, you can actually just use their code, all nicely pre-written for you. :-P
Repost (Score:1)

by IainHere ( 536270 ) writes:

I mean, it's still the third [slashdot.org] article on the developers page.
Thanks for Posting This Update! (Score:3, Funny)

by Koos Baster ( 625091 ) writes: <ghostbusters@NosPAM.xs4all.nl> on Monday November 25, 2002 @11:17AM (#4751717)

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

Share
twitter facebook
Repeat (Score:1)

by waffle zero ( 322430 ) writes:

Intel Releases Compiler Suite 7.0 [slashdot.org]
Dupe (Score:2)

by Xpilot ( 117961 ) writes:

Hasn't this already been posted?

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02 /1 1/24/001248&mode=thread&tid=118
No way... (Score:1)

by PinkX ( 607183 ) writes:

TWO DUPES A DAY!
- Actually there have been three dupes today, (Score:2)
  
  by amarodeeps ( 541829 ) writes:
  
  ...by my counting.
  http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/1 1/25/1559231&mode=thread&tid=118 [slashdot.org]
  
  http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/2 5/1226222&mode=thread&tid=134 [slashdot.org]
  
  http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/25/032422 1&mode=thread&tid=111 [slashdot.org]
  
  Don't worry Hemos, we all have days like that. ;) It is interesting stuff at least.
This reminds me of something... (Score:1)

by PD ( 9577 ) writes:

Are you starting an unrelated topic? [ynq]

Subject: q
Distribution:

This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.

Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]

Hemos, you should just pick the 'n' option I think.
GCC Compatable? (Score:3, Interesting)

by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) writes: <research@aceretail.com> on Monday November 25, 2002 @01:47PM (#4752762)

Why not just run GCC?

Share
twitter facebook
- Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:1)
  
  by pythorlh ( 236755 ) writes:
  
  Having some mod points today, I almost modded this as +1 Funny. But then I realised that I don't get the joke. 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? Not being a proffessional programmer, I don't really know.
  - Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:2, Informative)
    
    by RupW ( 515653 ) writes:
    
    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 [codeplay.com] but I'd guess they'd have the edge back by now.
- Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:2)
  
  by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) writes:
  
  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.
- Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:2)
  
  by WasterDave ( 20047 ) writes:
  
  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
Is Intel ICC 7.0 ABI compatible with GCC 3.2 ABI? (Score:2)

by truth_revealed ( 593493 ) writes:

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)?
- Re:Is Intel ICC 7.0 ABI compatible with GCC 3.2 AB (Score:2)
  
  by rhost89 ( 522547 ) writes:
  
  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.
Compile Kernel (Score:2)

by Screaming Lunatic ( 526975 ) writes:

Has anyone attempted to compile the kernel with the Intel Compiler?
- Re:Compile Kernel (Score:2)
  
  by WasterDave ( 20047 ) writes:
  
  It's apparently been done within Intel, but they had to do some wacky patches to make it a goer.
  
  Dave
  - - Re:Compile Kernel (Score:1)
      
      by IrvineHosting ( 628102 ) writes:
      
      Yeah, it appears ICC generated code is 30-50% faster than code generated by GCC.
      
      check out this benchmark
      
      http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/intel_comp/in tel_gcc_bench2.html

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

New Intel Compiler Released 35

New Intel Compiler Released More Login

New Intel Compiler Released

Is there (Score:1, Funny)

Redundant (Score:5, Funny)

Kettle? (Score:3, Funny)

someone still hasn't had his coffee... (Score:2, Funny)

Re:someone still hasn't had his coffee... (Score:3, Interesting)

compatible? (Score:5, Funny)

Re:compatible? (Score:4, Informative)

Re:compatible? (Score:1)

Re:compatible? (Score:1)

Repost (Score:1)

Thanks for Posting This Update! (Score:3, Funny)

Repeat (Score:1)

Dupe (Score:2)

No way... (Score:1)

Actually there have been three dupes today, (Score:2)

This reminds me of something... (Score:1)

GCC Compatable? (Score:3, Interesting)

Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:1)

Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:2, Informative)

Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:2)

Re:GCC Compatable? (Score:2)

Is Intel ICC 7.0 ABI compatible with GCC 3.2 ABI? (Score:2)

Re:Is Intel ICC 7.0 ABI compatible with GCC 3.2 AB (Score:2)

Compile Kernel (Score:2)

Re:Compile Kernel (Score:2)

Re:Compile Kernel (Score:1)

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

Slashdot Top Deals

Slashdot