Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:24:16 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 52 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <16-09-038@comp.compilers> References: <16-09-001@comp.compilers> <16-09-033@comp.compilers> <16-09-034@comp.compilers> <16-09-035@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="34999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: C, practice Posted-Date: 28 Sep 2016 22:28:29 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com X-Received-Bytes: 2981 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3146039308 Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1777 On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:36:29 -0700 (PDT), rugxulo@gmail.com wrote: >Four cpus is still good, better than average. (But even my old >Westmere has that. True. And newer isn't always better. Recently Intel has been focused more on power consumption than on performance. You can have more cores, but they run slower. >So where's our "thousands of cores", Intel?? >They sure do overhype SMP on every street corner! Humbug!) You can have 72 weak cores in the Xeon Phi 7290. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-phi-detail.html Or you can have 24 strong cores in the E7-8890 http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-processor-e7-family.html Depends on how much you want to pay. >And Skylake is very new. (I can't even pretend to remember all >the supported instruction sets.) Skylake has been generally available for more than a year. Its successor, Kaby Lake, is already available in selected [high priced] systems and is expected to be generally available by the holidays this year. >The bottleneck could really be something simple like the makefile >itself, but I realize that rewriting or replacing that isn't usually >easy. > > : > >> Dorking with the Makefile to only use -O on certain files isn't really >> an option; autotools sets things up to compile everything the same way >> and for the shipped tarball that is the right option. > >If you're going to let AutoTools (or anything else) dictate everything >for you, then you're going to have to live with slow compiles. There likely is opportunity to improve the make file, but slow builds with GCC generally are the result of design patterns that produce [too] many small source files, and/or coding patterns that prevent use of precompiled headers [there are a LOT of caveats there]. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Precompiled-Headers.html George