Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:28:31 -0500 (EST) From: c0ldbyte <c0ldbyte@myrealbox.com> To: gerarra@tin.it Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken Message-ID: <20050327142720.V15720@eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net> In-Reply-To: <20050327142324.D15693@eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net> References: <420008450006DC4F@ims3a.cp.tin.it> <20050327142324.D15693@eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, c0ldbyte wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 gerarra@tin.it wrote: > >>> >>> Without intending to start any compiler holy wars, what benefits does >>> ICC provide over GCC for the end user? >>> >> >> ICC would provide better low level code (remind: Intel C Compiler. It would >> mean better performance). >> >> rookie >> > > If any, still produces not all that much of a difference of code between > the newer gcc34 and as much performance differance as your going to get > isnt going to even be noticeable in the long run. Your just setting your > self up for failure with something that isnt really going to give you > the desired effects. > > -- > Best regards, > --c0ldbyte > PS: There is coders from Intel that do work on some of the code for gcc34. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF7DF979F iD8DBQFCRwlhsmFQuvffl58RAq83AJsGKYklfVtdxeT8UcIcJ21TaqAmiQCfY6Fz JhQgmTHP66gd6ySeo0zueHc= =RrMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050327142720.V15720>