Skip to main content
41 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 3 at 13:54 comment added Olórin @doug65536 Too good, sometimes. Beware.
Aug 3 at 13:53 comment added Olórin I wonder, as often with stack sites, which champion closed that question as opinion-based. As I am stupid, I have an idea of a finite list of criteria to compare two c++ compilers on a given version of a given OS, and how to scientifically benchmark them for each criterion. I must be very opinon-based. As science perhaps, lol. Again, no wonder why people are turning away from stack sites. Fact of which the delusional champions heading the company must be proud of.
Dec 12, 2020 at 16:03 history protected gnat
Dec 11, 2020 at 16:30 review Reopen votes
Dec 16, 2020 at 3:02
Jan 1, 2016 at 0:32 review Reopen votes
Jan 3, 2016 at 19:59
Dec 4, 2014 at 13:26 history closed gnat
Dan Pichelman
CommunityBot
DougM
Opinion-based
Dec 1, 2014 at 6:23 review Close votes
Dec 4, 2014 at 13:26
Aug 30, 2013 at 3:43 answer added LOG_TAG timeline score: 0
Apr 30, 2013 at 12:54 history post merged (destination)
Apr 30, 2013 at 12:54 history reopened ChrisF
Apr 30, 2013 at 7:28 history closed Robert Harvey
Martijn Pieters
thorsten müller
Kilian Foth
Bart van Ingen Schenau
exact duplicate
Apr 29, 2013 at 23:12 review Close votes
Apr 30, 2013 at 7:28
Apr 29, 2013 at 20:48 answer added jdv-Jan de Vaan timeline score: 0
Dec 27, 2012 at 1:00 comment added doug65536 Microsoft compiler generates very good code. Manual inspection of the assembly rarely finds any idiotic instruction sequences. In fact, I was impressed how deep the optimizations go, it even prevents instructions from crossing cache line boundaries.
Jun 9, 2012 at 13:32 vote accept CommunityBot
Jun 6, 2012 at 14:30 comment added Mark Booth It's never a good idea to highlight that your question is soliciting opinion, especially when it has been asked before.
Jun 5, 2012 at 4:14 answer added martiert timeline score: 3
Jun 5, 2012 at 3:18 answer added mattnz timeline score: 9
Jun 5, 2012 at 1:25 comment added user7071 Right. It is high politics. The relevance of Open Source to technology is just accidental
Jun 5, 2012 at 1:13 comment added kaoD @RocketSurgeon open source has nothing to do with money.
Jun 4, 2012 at 23:10 comment added user7071 I do not hate Open Source. I agree, that if you disconnect money from software, you help people to get better software. Say today, after years of Open Source movement I have luxury of getting free Visual Studio Express. Without Open Source influence on big vendors it will possibly cost me few bucks.
Jun 4, 2012 at 22:43 comment added Mason Wheeler @RocketSurgeon: Not everyone would agree with your statement. In fact Eric Raymond makes a pretty strong case for Microsoft having held the progress of computing back by a few decades with their business practices.
S Jun 4, 2012 at 18:00 history suggested Peter Mortensen CC BY-SA 3.0
Copy edited.
Jun 4, 2012 at 17:59 review Suggested edits
S Jun 4, 2012 at 18:00
Jun 4, 2012 at 1:09 comment added user7071 And by no means I have any disrespect to both teams. If not this 2 companies, this 21st century would be some kind of steam punk utopia instead of what we have now. Those teams should be held under triple glass jars away from public
Jun 4, 2012 at 0:59 comment added user7071 Right. Unless there is nobody to point a gun at. I heard that when source of Windows was leaked, people found that the real compiler was 2 generations behind what MS was selling at the moment. I estimate it is very possible that there are about 1..10 capable writers of compilers in a whole world. I mean head count, not vendor count.
Jun 4, 2012 at 0:54 comment added President James K. Polk Not really an answer, but nobody owns more code that runs on Intel processors than Microsoft. If there is some important optimization the Microsoft compilers are missing, you can bet the MS Windows team will hold the MS compiler team at gunpoint until they implement it.
Jun 3, 2012 at 14:15 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/209287132974551040
Jun 3, 2012 at 13:51 history edited user7071 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 characters in body
Jun 3, 2012 at 12:49 answer added Mason Wheeler timeline score: 14
Jun 3, 2012 at 12:33 answer added K.Steff timeline score: 58
Jun 3, 2012 at 12:22 history edited user7071 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 782 characters in body
Jun 3, 2012 at 12:01 history asked user7071 CC BY-SA 3.0
Aug 15, 2011 at 5:27 comment added Crashworks A glib answer would be, "The Intel compiler is the only one that comes close to actually doing half of all the optimizations that 'any smart compiler should' do for your code."
Aug 13, 2011 at 6:26 answer added David Schwartz timeline score: 5
Aug 4, 2011 at 19:29 answer added Jerry Coffin timeline score: 27
Aug 4, 2011 at 16:25 answer added quant_dev timeline score: 35
Aug 4, 2011 at 16:13 comment added FrustratedWithFormsDesigner @honk: If quant_dev can provide some links to back that up, then yes it should be!
Aug 4, 2011 at 15:51 comment added quant_dev Intel Compilers have a reputation for producting very efficient numerical code.
Aug 4, 2011 at 15:47 comment added Michael Todd Probably because when a company is used to a set of tools and its quirks, they tend to stick with it. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
Aug 4, 2011 at 15:45 comment added FrustratedWithFormsDesigner I would guess they do it because they need some specific feature of that compiler that others do not have. Or maybe they want paid support from Intel if things go wrong? I don't know for sure, having never done it myself...