From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 19 09:39:45 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29C11065674; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:39:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de [217.11.53.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469398FC1D; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:39:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p57B3B444.dip.t-dialin.net [87.179.180.68]) by mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D177984401F; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:39:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF17E131E; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:39:38 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1282210778; bh=+vTgaJp4xziEB4bSjiyQwO6hmT1R/+y5IEOY7cU0Va4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=pm0GZ4Q+vMAYdVP759J1faQGjoRwf4E/+V3KvmlnHaZc/VvzjuMPqVlxhZYI+T8xI +Ci/yiUxJe2kgCXSc2rZRelM+FLodb2vUda0lNamphqrwt27bN/o3Rs+IImdxWuLYb PNGneRVxfGX4fBU+ElGarZK7y99Ot+8O4TKHQ1QufpNVfq2ve1baaVT0HWLanVPood 7+fLg9/uy+3FEsnsRcI6+PM2rsNHxNGgR6yuZnpjd+EfkRz9ys++ZigjeIq9ozY0WL WyL6j8w+zbPTYNtQ8Koohejlfk3QuyvDEfvvRvTp2SisbGcN10FjfB/bI8Z6Nk6iWx Cb/xtjpoJV8OQ== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.4/8.13.8/Submit) id o7J9dc8B099808; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:39:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.ec.europa.eu (pslux.ec.europa.eu [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:39:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20100819113938.374618ltvdhg0nok@webmail.leidinger.net> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:39:38 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger To: "V. T. Mueller, Continum" 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> <4C6CF627.20205@continum.net> In-Reply-To: <4C6CF627.20205@continum.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Dynamic Internet Messaging Program (DIMP) H3 (1.1.4) X-EBL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-EBL-MailScanner-ID: D177984401F.A4592 X-EBL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-EBL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, spamhaus-ZEN, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.1, required 6, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.10, DKIM_VALID -0.10, DKIM_VALID_AU -0.10) X-EBL-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-EBL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1282815583.37408@LyvHyYbHlLrYG0ujARWH8g X-EBL-Spam-Status: No Cc: "arch@freebsd.org" , "current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Removal of ICC (intel compiler) bits from mk X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:39:45 -0000 Quoting "V. T. Mueller, Continum" (from Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:15:19 +0200): > 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? It may matter in the HPC community where optimization to a specific CPU matters (it doesn't matter that much for MySQL). There it does not matter much to have the kernel compiled with icc, but a icc port would be handy for them. Bye, Alexander. -- I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing... -- Thomas Jefferson http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137