Re: Intel C++ vs. gcc: New Numbers for New Versions

["Gareth Pearce" <tilps at hotmail dot com>]

> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> >
> > In many ways, comparing gcc and Intel C++ is an apples-and-oranges 
> affair,
> > given that each has strengths in different areas. How to compare Intel's
> > support for OpenMP against gcc's portability across platforms, that is 
> the
> > question.
> >
>
> I had a chance to look at Intel's implementation of OpenMP on a Itanium
> system and I was not really impressed. So, back into the topic of the
> list: are there any plan to write an OpenMP compatible frontend for gcc?
> I think that would be interesting and could bring the problem back to
> apple and apple or orange and orange comparison (though this won't be the
> main reason for developing it I guess...)
>
> I've seen my question asked several time in the list, but no clear
> answer. If there isn't any plan, I can volunteer, but I will need help by
> as many of you as possible.
>
> Biagio
If something like this was to start up - I would be interested in helping 
out (although my gcc hacking has been Extremely limited and for personal 
uses only so far...) - openMP - and ... f95(+extensions) - are probably the 
biggest factors that keep gcc out of common usage in my office.  (and f95 
looks like it might make it by 3.6 ;) - these issues are orthogonal too - 
since we have g77 compilable code - which otherwise needs another compiler 
for openMP.

Gareth


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail