Hi all,
I'm interested in knowing how GCC differs from Intel's ICC in terms of the
optimization levels and catering to specific processor architecture. I'm using
GCC 4.1.2 20070626 and ICC v11.1 for Linux.
How does ICC's optimization levels (O1 to O3) differ from GCC, if they differ
at all?
On 3/22/2010 7:46 PM, Rayne wrote:
Hi all,
I'm interested in knowing how GCC differs from Intel's ICC in terms of the
optimization levels and catering to specific processor architecture. I'm using
GCC 4.1.2 20070626 and ICC v11.1 for Linux.
How does ICC's optimization levels (O1 to O3)
--- Comment #1 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 15:02 ---
The test program is wrong. The loop counter i is not mentioned in the parallel
clause, so it is *shared*. Thus, the two loops interfere and the calculation of
pi goes wrong. Add private(i) to the clause or declare
20080312
Let me know if you need more detail.
God bless your work!
PS: I saw this bug(!) on another web page too!!!
Kemal Kilic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Summary: OpenMP issue in gcc vs icc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Hi everybody,
I just started working with openMP, i installed first gcc-4.2.3 and
then gcc-4.3.0, both of them having support for openMP.
I tried a code to calculate the product \pi*\e. When i compile the
code with gcc (both 4.2.3 and 4.3.0) withtout -fopenmp the result is
correct. When i
diego sandoval wrote:
Hi everybody,
I just started working with openMP, i installed first gcc-4.2.3 and
then gcc-4.3.0, both of them having support for openMP.
I tried a code to calculate the product \pi*\e. When i compile the
code with gcc (both 4.2.3 and 4.3.0) withtout -fopenmp the
Dear Diego,
As I understand it (which is not necessarily correct), your code is slightly
incorrect, since variable are by default shared between parallel sections.
Therefore, the int i is shared between threads, and hence the erratic
results if both loops execute at the same time. To fix it, you
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:21:27AM +0100, Ed Brambley wrote:
As I understand it (which is not necessarily correct), your code is slightly
incorrect, since variable are by default shared between parallel sections.
Therefore, the int i is shared between threads, and hence the erratic
results if