| 1 |
On 19/03/12 19:24, Andrew Lowe wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/20/12 01:17, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 19/03/12 16:11, Andrew Lowe wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 03/19/12 17:39, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 19/03/12 07:26, Andrew Lowe wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Hi all, |
| 7 |
>>>>> Has anyone played around with the various "better known" compilers on |
| 8 |
>>> [snip] |
| 9 |
>>> ... |
| 10 |
>>> ... |
| 11 |
>>> [snip] |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> You don't need to "change" compilers. You can use whatever one you like |
| 14 |
>>>> to build your program. The compiler portage uses to build its packages |
| 15 |
>>>> does not affect your own usage of the others. |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>> As for the fastest one, I can only speak for Intel CPUs where Intel C++ |
| 18 |
>>>> gives me the fastest binaries. |
| 19 |
>>>> |
| 20 |
>>> [...] Also, I've read somewhere |
| 21 |
>>> that there are libraries that you have to link against that are specific |
| 22 |
>>> to the Intel compiler as it does not create libraries that are |
| 23 |
>>> comparable with the gcc produced ones - is this true or does the |
| 24 |
>>> compiler now "play well" with the gcc world? |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> No special libs required. The binaries I get (both C and C++) don't use |
| 27 |
>> anything extra. I checked both with "ldd" as well as with lsof at |
| 28 |
>> runtime (in case it dlopens anything). |
| 29 |
>> [...] |
| 30 |
> Thanks for that. The library question was the reason I didn't proceed |
| 31 |
> with playing around with icc ages ago. Your experience tells me it's now |
| 32 |
> rectified. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Just to verify that I'm not mistaken about this, I just compiled a |
| 35 |
non-trivial project that uses C++ libraries, then uninstalled icc and |
| 36 |
all its deps (with --depclean), and the binary still ran without issues. |
Archives