Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:06:17 11/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2002 at 11:07:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 13, 2002 at 14:26:37, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On November 13, 2002 at 12:33:53, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >> >>>On November 13, 2002 at 12:13:59, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>>>But is it not true that C, for example, used on a Linux machine is somewhat >>>>different from C used on a Windows machine? The choice of operating system >>>>surely must impact the guts of the language used. Maybe the language, such as C, >>>>is better suited for use with one OS than another. True? >>>> >>> >>>I think what you are getting at is that there are different versions of >>>compilers for different OS's, e.g. MSVC for windows produces code that is ~10% >>>faster than gcc for linux. >> >>The best compiler I know of for chess programming (Intel's) is available for >>both Win32 and Linux. > >the fastest for me is by far GCC 3.2 because of >the superb branch optimization which can get achieved. > >intel c++ is equally fast like msvc is for me, but i cannot affort >bugs in my executables, therefore i use msvc usually. You keep saying that. I keep asking for concrete examples of where the compiler produces incorrect code. To date you have not posted one single example. Several here at UAB have tested this thing carefully and we could find no bugs in some major codes we run, both integer and floating point codes in fact. Intel is faster than gcc 3.2 for me, by a significant margin. And they produce _exactly_ the same node counts for searches of a billion nodes or more. I haven't seen it fail _one_ time yet in matching gcc's results (chess or other things such as molecular modeling and simulation). It just produces those results faster. > >Didn't manage yet to compile with gcc for win32 when using shared memory >stuff. Only single cpu stuff goes ok with default ansi-C calls for win32 >with gcc so far. > >>For Win32 and Linux as choices, there is little difference. Go with whichever >>you are more comfortable with. If you write your code in ANSI/ISO C then it >>will port to anything under the sun with a simple recompile. Therefore, the OS >>is almost completely irrelevant. >> >>The choice of algorithm is literally orders of magnitude more important than the >>choice of programming language. But you can cost yourself 50 ELO or so with a >>slower choice (e.g. Java, VB.NET, and other interpreted languages are simply not >>going to be as fast, despite all the protests of the prognosticators) >> >>On the other hand, if you are more comfortable in one of these langauges, you >>will probably write your best possible engine by using one of them.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.