From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21850 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2004 17:10:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21842 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2004 17:10:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.knology.net) (24.214.63.101) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2004 17:10:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 10413 invoked by uid 0); 18 Sep 2004 17:10:13 -0000 Received: from user-24-96-24-30.knology.net (HELO ?192.168.0.8?) (24.96.24.30) by smtp2.knology.net with SMTP; 18 Sep 2004 17:10:13 -0000 Message-ID: <414C6C0E.3070503@coyotegulch.com> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:26:00 -0000 From: Scott Robert Ladd User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc mailing list Subject: Comparing Linux C and C++ Compilers: Benchmarks and Analysis X-Enigmail-Version: 0.85.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01111.txt.bz2 Hello, I've posted a comparison of recent GCC versions (3.3, 3.4, and the coming 4.0) with Intel C++ 8.1, including several benchmarks and "state-of-the-product" reviews. You can find the article at: http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/ The above article replaces an older piece I published in late 2002. This new comparison marks what I hope will be an ongoing series that tracks the quality of Linux compilers. ..Scott -- Scott Robert Ladd site: http://www.coyotegulch.com blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com