Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Muuss
hehe, its funny to see how you deturn the general sense into small pieces just to make it keeping more a less the same meaning, but by still isolating the parts where you can place your opinion and finally return them :)
|
I felt that your statements should be addressed individually.
Quote:
|
One thing is sure, all of them finnally end up with gcc as soon as they start to work on unix like stations.
|
This is exactly contrary to your earlier statements implying that portability was of utmost importance. Not to mention the fact that it has no impact whatsoever on the fact that simply using gcc doesn't resolve all of the underlying differences in the various subsystems.
Quote:
Quote:
|
I think that it is possible to use icc to write code for older x86 chips, if that is what you're asking. I am told that the performance benefits are still evidenced, perhaps due to more agressive memory alignment strategies. The compiler supports some optimizations, though, that are very chip specific. This is true for gcc and ms cl, too.
|
Well no, that's not what i was asking. The question is : i wrote some optimized code for my P4, can i compile it on that other computer which only has a P2 ?
|
So, you are asking if code specifically engineered to take advantage of features only found on a p4 (hyperthreading, for example) will run on a chip that doesn't support those features? Of course not. I'm not really sure how this could be unclear. I don't really see how this is an issue, though. It certainly hasn't hurt adoption of prior chip-specific features (like mmx or 3dnow! or sse or ...). If you don't have mmx avaliable, you just can't run mmx optimized code (obviously).