Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:52:43 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 16:07:47, Matt Taylor wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 13:17:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On December 19, 2002 at 13:11:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Not my experience. It compiles all of Crafty just fine, and the profile-based >>>optimizations seem to work well also. >> >>Crafty is hardly a refernce. You are in SPEC. Everybody who writes >>a compiler, especially if they have hardware interests, is going to >>make damn sure you get compiled correctly. But that doesn't help >>the rest of us. >> >>>As I said, it If you do unsafe aliasing and such, it might >>>have a problem, but nobody here writes that kind of code... >> >>I don't. >> >>An internal compiler error is a sure bug anyway, no matter >>what code it is compiling. > >Silly user. The crashes must be your fault! That's a feature, not a bug! ;) >With feedback like that for the Intel C compiler, perhaps there would really be >a market for an optimizer with similar performance that actually worked. > >I haven't used Intel C much, but what I did compile never gave me issues. > >-Matt I have seen _many_ compiler problems. More so than I have seen with Intel, for example. GCC for solaris won't compile crafty and produce a working executable. HP's compiler was broken in long long stuff until I helped the compiler guys track it down. The list goes on... But for me, and everyone _here_ intel's compiler is working flawlessly and producing faster code than gcc by a wide margin...
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.