Instead of agressively attacking and answering in generalities ('there are many cases where ICC is beter'), care to explain how you formed your opinion?
I suspect you don't realize who you are messing with. 151 [numbergossip.com] is a palindromic prime (but then again so is one of the factors [numbergossip.com] of 179040). Never mind.
Like I said, we were only interested in one application: our simulator. It was developed for gcc and suncc for sparc. icc produced a slower binary. ICC may be faster over a wide variety of benchmarks, and probably especially ones where vectorization, etc can be used. However, for our simulator, gcc produced better results.
Hey, but I bet you haven't tried with the article-mentioned "Intel ICC Compiler". Now with more redundancy! That will get you 200% more runtime than GCC!!
Maybe "Intel ICC Compiler for C Language"? Oh, that's a winner.
Unimpressed with ICC (Score:5, Interesting)
We were not impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS, there are cases where GCC can beat ICC, however there are many more where ICC is significantly better.
My bet, either you are full of BS, or you 'tried' a rather specific and limited codebase.
I also suspect your codebase was developed under gcc and then just thrown at icc? hmmmm?
ICC is a VERY impressive compiler, GCC is a quite good compiler. we are lucky to have both (and then a few other options as well).
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of agressively attacking and answering in generalities ('there are many cases where ICC is beter'), care to explain how you formed your opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
--
2*7*68213 [mazes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, but I bet you haven't tried with the article-mentioned "Intel ICC Compiler". Now with more redundancy! That will get you 200% more runtime than GCC!!
Maybe "Intel ICC Compiler for C Language"? Oh, that's a winner.