By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,194 Members | 828 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,194 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

C++ compiler optimization... who's on first?

P: n/a
In the may 2004 issue of the Dr. Dobb's magazine, there was a benchmark test
of popular C++ compilers. Intel came out the winner (beating VC++ 7.1).

I would like to know the ranking with the new versions of Intel's C++
comiler and VC++ 8. Does Intel beats Microsoft again???

=============================
Lovens Weche
Sirinik Team - "Games you can't live without"
www.sirinikteam.com
=============================
Jun 20 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
4 Replies


P: n/a
Lovens Weche wrote:
In the may 2004 issue of the Dr. Dobb's magazine, there was a
benchmark test of popular C++ compilers. Intel came out the winner
(beating VC++ 7.1).
I would like to know the ranking with the new versions of Intel's C++
comiler and VC++ 8. Does Intel beats Microsoft again???


You should ask in 'microsoft.public.vc.*' hierarchy or use Intel's online
forum. I bet if you ask both, each will come up with their own charts of
performance improvements and benchmarks showing how they beat the other
one.

We don't compare compilers based on benchmarks except one: which is the
most compliant. And so far neither of the two is 100%.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Jun 20 '06 #2

P: n/a
Lovens Weche wrote:
In the may 2004 issue of the Dr. Dobb's magazine, there was a benchmark test
of popular C++ compilers. Intel came out the winner (beating VC++ 7.1).


This would be like a three-legged race: which team can run fastest,
subject to a severe handicap. That is: who can compile best for one of
the most idiotic instruction set architectures known to man.

Jun 20 '06 #3

P: n/a
On 20 Jun 2006 14:07:32 -0700, "Kaz Kylheku" <kk******@gmail.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c++:
Lovens Weche wrote:
In the may 2004 issue of the Dr. Dobb's magazine, there was a benchmark test
of popular C++ compilers. Intel came out the winner (beating VC++ 7.1).


This would be like a three-legged race: which team can run fastest,
subject to a severe handicap. That is: who can compile best for one of
the most idiotic instruction set architectures known to man.


<off-topic>

"The most idiotic instruction set architectures known to man."???

Have you spent much time with 8051, PIC, or most DSPs more than 3 or 4
years old?

</off-topic>

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Jun 20 '06 #4

P: n/a
Jack Klein wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 14:07:32 -0700, "Kaz Kylheku" <kk******@gmail.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c++:

Lovens Weche wrote:
In the may 2004 issue of the Dr. Dobb's magazine, there was a benchmark test
of popular C++ compilers. Intel came out the winner (beating VC++ 7.1).
This would be like a three-legged race: which team can run fastest,
subject to a severe handicap. That is: who can compile best for one of
the most idiotic instruction set architectures known to man.

<off-topic>

"The most idiotic instruction set architectures known to man."???

Have you spent much time with 8051, PIC, or most DSPs more than 3 or 4
years old?

8051 is kindergarten stuff compared with x86, as for DSPs, just remember
to leave your prior knowledge at the door!

<even more OT>
Just think how much better the PC would have been if IBM had used the 68K.
</even more OT>
</off-topic>

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 20 '06 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.