News from Slashdot: ““Intels C++ and Fortran compilers are now available for Windows and Linux. The compiler for Linux provides higher compatibility with the GNU C-compiler including compability to the upcoming GCC-3.1 C++-ABI (binary compability) and support for several GNUisms in the syntax (PDF). To quote Intel: ‘The 6.0 release of the Intel C++ compiler has improved support for the GNU C language extensions and is now able to build the Linux kernel with minor work arounds for both the IA-32 and Itanium architectures.’ Little reminder: Running such a kernel is, of course, not supported by the kernel developers. Evaluation copies are available for download, but requires previous registration.”
Intel Releases V6.0 Compiler Suite
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I know the reports say this thing is fast, but at
$400 it is sortof pricy, being as most people paid
nothing for linux + gcc. Benchmarks, someone have a link
to some (halfway unbiased) bunchmarks?
Don’t start the same conversation over and over again. 🙂
We have already discussed about its price: (and how cheap it is!)
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=56
ummm since when do they “Officialy” support the regular kernel outside of bugs caused by their code? I never recal them supporting GCC compiler problems with 3.0 or RH’s GCC.
$400 is CHEAP for a compiler. Look at Sun tools, for example.
Forte 6 C 1 RTU slim kit – $1295
Forte 6 C++ 1 RTU slim kit – $3495
I’d guess that IBM’s products aren’t far behind. I would have looked it up, but quite frankly don’t feel masocistic enough to try and navigate their web site
L8R
Apples developer’s suite is …… free!!!!
seems like a good deal if you ask me 🙂
povray-3.1g, gcc-3.0.4 vs ICC 5.0.1: ICC is 29% faster (CPU: Celeron)
crafty-18.14 chess engine: ICC is 15% faster
bzip2 decompress: ICC is 15% faster
gzip decompress: ICC is 20% faster
optimum compiling options were used with gcc and ICC (found by experimenting).
ICC 6.0 vs gcc-3.1 to be tested later!
Excellent information Grue!! Thanks!
Please let us know of ICC 6’s results as well when you do its benchmarks. Also, from what I know, ICC optimizes much better than GCC 3.x when it comes on the PIII (SSE instructions) and *especially* P4 (ICC6 auto-vectorizes for SSE-2). So, if you have a Pentium 4 around, you will see ICC to have much more difference in speed than GCC 3.x (who also has some P4 optimizations), than the one you get on Celerons or PIIs!!
Also, have you tried the GCC 3.1 pre-release version? Not that its speed will be way different than GCC 3.04, but there may be a bit better.
Linux geek *programmers* who want the fastest possible stuff, they should recompile most of their Linux with ICC 6, *especially* if they run Pentium 3 or 4.
Yeah, but…. then you have to use an Apple
Michel LESPINASSE reported on the gcc mailing list
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-04/msg01194.html
that integer and floating point libraries (one was an mpeg2 library) can see increases of performance over 2.95.4
of around 10%. This was on an Athlon and they are still working through some problems with the inliner.
3.1 should provide many applications with a significant performance boost. I don’t know if it can compile the linux kernel.
Does this Intel compiler suite include Ada95 support?
I have mixed feelings about the free development tools that come with OSX. Free sounds pretty attractive but they’re not as high quality as say, MS Visual Studio. 2 things I like about Visual Studio: A pop-up list of data members after you type a period or “->” after a class name or struct. It’s a nice feature and comes in handy. The other thing is the tool tip pop ups that display the entire function or method definition after you type “(“.
Project Builder doesn’t have those features. But it does have a nifty pull down menu to quickly jump from method definition to another.
As far as expensive development tools goes, I don’t mind heavy price tags (I’m not rich, mind you) as long as it comes with an IDE that is easy and fast to use. If Intel was selling just the command-line compiler and some other cmd-line tools for $400, then I’d say that’s a bit high. Throw in a good IDE and I’d say it’s a good deal.
there is plenty of good IDEs think about eclipse or anjuta(that personally I like so muc if I have to use an IDE to keep track of multiple files)
Bah. When they RELEASE gcc 3.1, it HAS to be able to compile the Linux kernel, otherwise they risk pissing off many many many people, since gcc is THE default and supported compiler for the Linux team. The BSD people will also be quite cheesed, as will IBM, and Apple (not Linux, but gcc is the default compiler included in the Mac OS X dev tools, I believe).
On the other hand, gcc for windows can lag and lag and lag and lag…..(Cygwin and MingW are still at 2.95.3-some-patched-up-thingie)
<sarcasm>
Micro$ofties don’t need a free compiler for Win32! Didn’t all those chumps pay up for Visual C++ .NOT? Real coders use some command line unix with emacs or vi anyway!
</sarcasm>
Ok, I’m bitter and broke and don’t know enough to actually help out (so no “Well why don’t you look at the code and help?!”) UNIX, Windows, compilers, and binutils are hairy, complex beasts with claws and fangs that don’t like being trivially poked at by someone who doesn’t intimately know their internals. All I can really do is express demand and hope someone listens.
Oh well, at least there are efforts to port much of the .NET under-the-hood stuff.
In response to: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-04/msg01194.html
The problem with a lot of tests like libmpeg2 is that they already have big portions written in ASM, so I can’t really see the C compiler helping much. Maybe I misunderstood, though…
Well if you are willing to learn and use Ada95 then there are lots of really good free up to date tools avaliable for windows. (free ides, compilers, windowing libs, etc)
Ada95 has better support under windows that is does under Linux.
I think its funny how all those leet hackers refuse to even consider Ada when it is a darn good language(IMHO).
See
http://www.adapower.com
For me I can make my PC %29 faster for less than $400 so it is cheaper to upgrade my hardware than to but a better optimizing compiler. For someone who distributes Linux it would be a good investment to compile as much of their system as possible with such a compiler. Making a Linux distro run even 10% faster would make it more attractive to users. I think that Intel’s best strategy would be to contribute all their optimizations to gcc so that it would compete more favorably with Athlons.
about the pre IDE era in programming? you did not have to learn how to navigate a gui.
IMHO programming is a text based action. keeping things on the command line kept your mind on logic, when you have to switch over to menues and tool-tips, you have to switch from your logic to your visual though pattern.
I mean when you know the commands you need, you do not have to mis a keystroke to save foo.c and then compile and link it. it might be over all more efficient to use an IDE, but I feel it is more tiring moving from text to visual navigation.
Just My Opinion.
There’s a free unsuported version here at http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/c60l/noncom.htm for non comercial purposes. So not every one has to spend $400.
>keeping things on the command line kept your mind on logic
maybe procedural languages, yes, but coding OO (especially java) is much better in an IDE
> I think that Intel’s best strategy would be to contribute
> all their optimizations to gcc so that it would compete
> more favorably with Athlons.
The thing is: a big number of these optimisations would also help the Athlon!
So it wouldn’t help Intel to differentiate its products over AMD’s products..
GOOD visual IDEs have one very important, time saving feature: streamlined project management.
Unity of interface and logic is fine, but I don’t like blowing useful time hacking up makefiles, or getting autoconf to work, or whatever. Good IDEs take care of this. REALLY good IDEs can have a good source version control system plugged into them. This means more time spent fixing my stupid bugs in the code instead of fixing my stupid bugs in the scripts ;-). Next IDE feature I don’t wish to give up is syntax highlighting. I like it SOOOO much, and it can be done quite well in text mode too (remember old versions of Borland C/C++?)
Bonus features I really like but can reluctantly give up if necessary:
1. automagic completion of function, class, method, and variable(?) names within a file, or the whole project
2. Automagic lookup of function usage, parameters, and return types while you type.
3. Integrated debugging
4. Automagic compiler error line number lookup (not perfect, I know)
5. Quick and dirty “Run” command. very useful for TEACHINGprogramming.
6. Integrated debugging.
7. Graphical setup for compiler options cross referenced with documentation.
8. Modular enough to allow other tools to be plugged in
9. Integrated debugg..oh, you get the point.
10. Fnord. (You are not authorized for fnord)
–JM
I disagree. I’ve just started doing java (maybee 6 months ago?) and I’m finding that xfte is still my favorite ide/editor. I’ve tried NetBeans,Forte and some other prominent commercial ide, whose name I cannot remmeber for the life of me. I find all of the WAY too distracting. Plus, there is something to be said for being intametly familiar with the language you’re working with. For example – EJB deployment descriptors. Sure, the IDE will put them together for you, but I think that it’s important to know what’s going on behind the scenes. Especialy if you’re just starting out with the language. In the long run, it’s very beneficial when you’re trying to trouble-shoot some bizare fucking problem. I’m sure that just about every *competent* programmer has seen a “Windows Programmer” who learned to code using “Learn Programming in 2 Days”. If anything goes wrong that’s not in the book, they’re completely lost.
have anyone tried to compile a 2.4.* kernel?
Actually, MOST of the stuff I listed has little to do with knowing the language, just little conveniences I have found allow me to spend more time on the code and less time on other stuff. I will freely admit that they do make you a little lazy, but note I did NOT ask for “Wizards that do everything except push the little toolbar button that says ‘compile'”.
I’ll never dictate what is “best” and I didn’t in my previous post, but I do know what I like, and have found that there are competent programmers that agree with me. I’m glad you have an environment you’re comfortable AND PRODUCTIVE with.
About the poor “Instant Programmers”
There are plenty of people who really want a program to do this and please, God, let it just work and not be too slow. They may not have time to think about HOW it works with relation to the machine, or how best to take advantage of the resources available. A lot of people in research, academia, engineering, economics, and such have these needs and cannot afford to hire a programming team. So, they buy a “Learn C in a week” book and dive right in.
C/C++, Java, and C# are not for these people, in my opinion. These poor souls need to be steered toward other solutions in the first place. There are plenty of languages and tools suitable for high-level, rapid application development, like Matlab, Python, Ruby, Smalltalk, Lisp, IDL, VB, VBdotNET. They don’t even suck, and can be used to make real applications with GUIs and everything.
Oh, and for the poor saps who thought they could go into programming only for the money? Stick to that MBA or law degree. You’ll thank me.
–JM
PS– Oh, and I still hate makefiles. There, I said it. Flame if you wish.
I agree with the make files statement – unfortunately they’re a neccessary and unavoidable evil. And ‘cmon! Tracking down weird errors/problems in make files is FUN FUN FUN!
As for not being able to hire a programming team – I agree with you to some degree, but I think (hope) that are lots of people who program for the love of it and not just monetery profit. I for one, have given up trying to make loads of money in programming. If you’re making a healty buck as a programmer, chances are that you’re churning out accounting/analysis software in a human farm. Fuck that. I’ve decided to selectively choose projects that pay enought to pay my rent with enough left over for fun.
With the above statement, I realize I’m generalizing and simplying fying things a lot – so fine, no cookie for me
>I’ve tried NetBeans,Forte and some other prominent
>commercial ide, whose name I cannot remmeber for the life
>of me
Try Eclipse for windows, very good and not distracting. Unix versions use motif so it isn’t very good. I haven’t seen the GTK version
One problem with that (Eclipse for windows). I don’t own a windows machine. Sparc and *BSD/Linux. I would be quite a hippocrate if I owned a windows machine after all the M$ hatred that I’m constantly spewing forth
Then try Eclipse for Sparc, it uses motif better since it is more native to Solaris and should be properly configured