Intel's "cripple AMD" function

Re:Intel's "cripple AMD" function by rbanffy on Sunday January 03, 2010 @09:58PM (#1029642)

"I find Intel's compiler to outperform GCC on pretty much all of the numerical work I do."

It's only a question of time. I suspect that if more companies decided to pool resources around GCC (or any other free C compiler, like pcc or clang), they will pretty much bury Intel.

Intel is a chip company. The only conceivable reason for them to want to maintain a C compiler is to make a C compiler that's better than the competition on Intel processors and that sucks as much as possible on competing architectures.

Icc is not a compiler. It's a sales tool.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's "cripple AMD" function by jey on Sunday January 03, 2010 @10:54PM (#1029727)

I fully agree. I'm looking forward to LLVM becoming fully mature; it's a great platform already, and just needs to be fleshed out with some more optimizations/analyses/etc. And with the clang front-end, we can get rid of the unmaintainable pile of crap that is GCC.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's "cripple AMD" function by pvandehaar on Tuesday January 05, 2010 @12:37AM (#1031928)

A good compiler without bias would help the whole market, but not enough to be worth the expense.

[ Parent | on HN ]