On 19/03/12 19:24, Andrew Lowe wrote:
On 03/20/12 01:17, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 19/03/12 16:11, Andrew Lowe wrote:
On 03/19/12 17:39, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 19/03/12 07:26, Andrew Lowe wrote:
Hi all,
Has anyone played around with the various "better known" compilers on
[snip]
...
...
[snip]
You don't need to "change" compilers. You can use whatever one you like
to build your program. The compiler portage uses to build its packages
does not affect your own usage of the others.
As for the fastest one, I can only speak for Intel CPUs where Intel C++
gives me the fastest binaries.
[...] Also, I've read somewhere
that there are libraries that you have to link against that are specific
to the Intel compiler as it does not create libraries that are
comparable with the gcc produced ones - is this true or does the
compiler now "play well" with the gcc world?
No special libs required. The binaries I get (both C and C++) don't use
anything extra. I checked both with "ldd" as well as with lsof at
runtime (in case it dlopens anything).
[...]
Thanks for that. The library question was the reason I didn't proceed
with playing around with icc ages ago. Your experience tells me it's now
rectified.
Just to verify that I'm not mistaken about this, I just compiled a
non-trivial project that uses C++ libraries, then uninstalled icc and
all its deps (with --depclean), and the binary still ran without issues.
