From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 19 09:15:21 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F4A106566C; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:15:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from v.t.mueller@continum.net) Received: from mailsrv1.continum.net (mr1.continum.net [80.72.129.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554E78FC18; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:15:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c483.continum.net ([80.72.130.250] helo=[172.16.4.65]) by mr1.continum.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Om1DX-0001Zi-3S; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:15:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4C6CF627.20205@continum.net> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:15:19 +0200 From: "V. T. Mueller, Continum" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <65F17C45-55C1-4349-A4D1-A3D6AD0D9A80@FreeBSD.org> <4C6C1EB1.5000004@FreeBSD.org> <20100819090128.22597bbvyogdw9wk@webmail.leidinger.net> <4C6CDB3A.1010200@continum.net> <20100819104913.19722klqtkcfy2gw@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20100819104913.19722klqtkcfy2gw@webmail.leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "arch@freebsd.org" , "current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Removal of ICC (intel compiler) bits from mk X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:15:21 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Alexander Leidinger wrote: >>> If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to >>> what we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I >>> would have a look if my contact at Intel is still working there in a >>> position which allows him to get a commercial license for us. >> >> A while ago it was stated by MySQL AB, that their dbms performs about >> 20% better when compiled with icc instead of gcc. Is this (still) true? > > This looks overly simplified. "It runs better on CPU X with benchmark Y > on Mainboard Z when you use gcc A.B.C with options D and compare it to > icc E.F.G with options H." is something you can use in such cases, but > it doesn't tell you if it will be the case on your machines with your > workload. > > If you want to know if it is faster on your machines with your workload, > then there is only one way to find it out: try it (be warned, due to the > amount of optimization options available in gcc/icc, something like this > will take a lot of time, as there are a lot of combinations to try). Sounds reasonable. But doesn't that mean, that there is no need to (take the hassle to) support icc in the future? Especially while folks are being keen on abandon gcc for clang? Cheers vt -- Volker T. Mueller Continum AG Bismarckallee 7d 79098 Freiburg i. Br. Tel. +49 761 21711171 Fax. +49 761 21711198 http://www.continum.net Sitz der Gesellschaft: Freiburg im Breisgau Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg, HRB 6866 Vorstand: Rolf Mathis, Volker T. Mueller Vorsitzender d. Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. Karl-F. Fischbach