Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:21:37 -0500 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: c0ldbyte <c0ldbyte@myrealbox.com> Cc: gerarra@tin.it Subject: Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken Message-ID: <20050327232137.GA90785@VARK.MIT.EDU> 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
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005, c0ldbyte wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > 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. For some applications, particularly in scientific computing, icc is significantly better. The FreeBSD kernel is not in this category, however. Operating system kernels tend to spend most of their time chasing pointers and copying data, and compilers can't really optimize these operations.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050327232137.GA90785>