On 9/9/11 9:39 PM, Tamer Higazi wrote: > As I say, I did once. There is no fallback to gcc if icc wouldn't > compile a package. > > I know, that the ICC compiler promise to give more performance.... > However, collect your experience and speak with the gentoo maintainer > for the icc compiler packages to have a fallback routine. Would be > really great. I am thinking to get in the next month a core I7. To > compile gentoo on it, would be SUPER!
How would one distinguish a failed build because of some library incompatibility and a real compilation problem with compiler. I dodn't see a general way to distiguish compiler problems from other problems. Nevertheless, please try the icc package from sci overlay. Ot works quite smooth. If you like speed, try the gold linker for c++ packages like chromium, qt-libs, libreoffice and similar. > > Am 07.09.2011 10:05, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger: >> Am 2011-09-07 07:19, schrieb justin: >>> On 9/5/11 11:43 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: >>>> >>>> Anyone else using Intel's compiler, icc? >>> >>> Hi Stefan, >>> >>> try to stick to gcc as most pacakges will compile with it. >>> >>> I personally use icc/ifort for some sience packages and see >>> speedups of calculation between 2-25x depending on the *FLAGS. But >>> this needs much optimization of the flags. Nevertheless interesting >>> for performance critical apps. >>> >>> Another compiler which was recently released after a long time as >>> closed source app into the open source world is the ekopath >>> compiler suite (ekopath(-bin) and path64) which proofed to have the >>> best optimization of all compilers in benchmarks. But same as icc, >>> it might not work with some packages. >>> >>> And never use it with the kernel. >> >> Thanks to both of you (Justin, Tamer). >> >> All this doesn't answer my question, but OK, I will find my way ... >> >> Greets, Stefan >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
