On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Stéphane Rollandin
<lecteur at zogotounga.net> wrote:
>
> Reading again, I see that the blogger's last sentence is "the advantage of
> ICC over GCC is negligible and wouldn't justify the time spent in
> recompilation and porting."

Well, ok, it was the second to the last paragraph I was referring to.
But as for his porting comment, why does he have to port?  Is it
because the code was written specifically for gcc?

> as for the two sets of bars, they reflect these figures:
>
> GCC-4.1.2: 437.24 sec
> GCC-4.2.3: 436.98 sec
> GCC-4.3.0: 436.17 sec
> ICC 10.1: 429.72 sec
>
> and
>
> GCC-4.1.2: 217.00 sec
> GCC-4.2.3: 216.97 sec
> GCC-4.3.0: 206.90 sec
> ICC 10.1: 191.91 sec
>
> (note that a comment rightly says: 'Your graphs aren't optimal, because if
> you look only at the graphs, you think icc is twice as fast as gcc.')

Yep, missed that.  Ok, so in this particular benchmark from this
person ICC wasn't twice as fast, closer to 5% or so.

> sure, I said business => quality is an ideological statement.
> open source => quality or business => crap would be other ideological
> statements.
>
> my point was: let's not be ideological.

Fair enough.  I just get tired of seeing people poo-pooed for wanting
to have their own business.  The loss leader style of Red Hat, etc.
isn't going to work for everyone.