From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 27 19:28:35 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEB316A4CE for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:28:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mxsf36.cluster1.charter.net (mxsf36.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4623543D3F for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:28:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from c0ldbyte@myrealbox.com) Received: from mxip20.cluster1.charter.net (mxip20a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.150])j2RJSY1p012560 for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:28:34 -0500 Received: from 24.247.253.134.gha.mi.chartermi.net (HELO eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net) (24.247.253.134) by mxip20.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2005 14:28:33 -0500 X-Ironport-AV: i="3.91,127,1110171600"; d="scan'208"; a="827966830:sNHT12903040" Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:28:31 -0500 (EST) From: c0ldbyte To: gerarra@tin.it In-Reply-To: <20050327142324.D15693@eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net> Message-ID: <20050327142720.V15720@eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net> References: <420008450006DC4F@ims3a.cp.tin.it> <20050327142324.D15693@eleanor.us1.wmi.uvac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:28:35 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, c0ldbyte wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 gerarra@tin.it wrote: > >>> >>> Without intending to start any compiler holy wars, what benefits does >>> ICC provide over GCC for the end user? >>> >> >> ICC would provide better low level code (remind: Intel C Compiler. It would >> mean better performance). >> >> rookie >> > > If any, still produces not all that much of a difference of code between > the newer gcc34 and as much performance differance as your going to get > isnt going to even be noticeable in the long run. Your just setting your > self up for failure with something that isnt really going to give you > the desired effects. > > -- > Best regards, > --c0ldbyte > PS: There is coders from Intel that do work on some of the code for gcc34. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF7DF979F iD8DBQFCRwlhsmFQuvffl58RAq83AJsGKYklfVtdxeT8UcIcJ21TaqAmiQCfY6Fz JhQgmTHP66gd6ySeo0zueHc= =RrMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----