Quoting David Schultz (from Tue, 26 Apr 2011
11:46:45 -0400):
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010, Rui Paulo wrote:
Hi,
I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok
with the removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places.
The reason is that it doesn't work and no one has volunt
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010, Rui Paulo wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok with the
> removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places.
> The reason is that it doesn't work and no one has volunteered to fix it for
> many years. This seems to indicate tha
Quoting Dimitry Andric (from Tue, 19 Apr 2011
19:51:48 +0200):
On 2011-04-19 13:21, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
...
You probably also want to remove the code that uses __INTEL_COMPILER
in source tree if you want to be really thorough.
Ok, new patch attached. Some of the contributed source
On 2011-04-19 13:21, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
...
You probably also want to remove the code that uses __INTEL_COMPILER
in source tree if you want to be really thorough.
Ok, new patch attached. Some of the contributed sources also contain
instances of __INTEL_COMPILER, but these are all from
Quoting Dimitry Andric (from Mon, 18 Apr 2011
21:47:00 +0200):
On 2011-04-18 16:34, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
...
Please review the attached patch, which cleans up the ICC bits.
You probably also want to remove the code that uses __INTEL_COMPILER
in source tree if you want to be really thoro
On 2011-04-18 16:34, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
...
Please review the attached patch, which cleans up the ICC bits.
You probably also want to remove the code that uses __INTEL_COMPILER
in source tree if you want to be really thorough.
Ok, new patch attached. Some of the contributed sources also
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:42:49 +0200
Dimitry Andric wrote:
> Reviving an old thread(*), I would like to propose to finally remove
> the Intel C Compiler support from share/mk and other places. As
> mentioned in that thread, the ICC bits simply do not work anymore,
> and no one has volunteered to f
Reviving an old thread(*), I would like to propose to finally remove the
Intel C Compiler support from share/mk and other places. As mentioned
in that thread, the ICC bits simply do not work anymore, and no one has
volunteered to fix it for many years.
Please review the attached patch, which cle
Anton Shterenlikht writes:
>> It could matter for ports, I do not know if it matters for parts in
>> src. The commercial license is also the only way that we could get icc
>> installed on machines in the FreeBSD cluster [...]
> If one begins to mention FreeBSD clusters, and moreover FreeBSD HP
Hi,
I'm taking out arch and some people from the CC and only keep
curr...@. This is getting off topic for the initial thread.
Quoting Anton Shterenlikht (from Thu, 19 Aug
2010 21:10:24 +0100):
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:35:48AM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting Dag-Erling SmÃ?
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:35:48AM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>
> Quoting Dag-Erling SmÃ??rgrav (from Thu, 19 Aug 2010
> 11:16:23 +0200):
>
> > Alexander Leidinger writes:
> >> If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to what
> >> we have for outdated icc version
I think sometimes we act as if code that is removed from the tree is
gone forever, with no possibility of it ever returning. I don't
understand this attitude. :) If something is unsupported it should be
removed, Q.E.D. There is no reason to think of possible reasons that we
might want it to st
Am 19.08.2010 11:35, schrieb Alexander Leidinger:
>
> Quoting Dag-Erling Smørgrav (from Thu, 19 Aug 2010
> 11:16:23 +0200):
>
>> Alexander Leidinger writes:
>>> If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to what
>>> we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection
Quoting "V. T. Mueller, Continum" (from
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:15:19 +0200):
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to
what we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I
would have a look if my cont
Quoting Dag-Erling Smørgrav (from Thu, 19 Aug 2010
11:16:23 +0200):
Alexander Leidinger writes:
If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to what
we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I would
have a look if my contact at Intel is still working th
Alexander Leidinger writes:
> If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to what
> we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I would
> have a look if my contact at Intel is still working there in a
> position which allows him to get a commercial license for us.
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to
what we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I
would have a look if my contact at Intel is still working there in a
position which allows him to get a comm
Quoting "V. T. Mueller, Continum" (from
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:20:26 +0200):
Hello,
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to
what we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I
would have a look if my contact at Intel is stil
Hello,
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
If someone would get icc 11.x up and runnig as a port (similar to what
we have for outdated icc version in the ports collection), I would have
a look if my contact at Intel is still working there in a position which
allows him to get a commercial license for u
Quoting Dimitry Andric (from Wed, 18 Aug 2010
19:56:44 +0200):
Updating that port to icc 11.1 is probably not a trivial task, and
making sure it compiles programs properly is even trickier... :)
It is not as trivial as a normal "configure;make;make install" port,
but with the existing por
Quoting Gabor Kovesdan (from Wed, 18 Aug 2010
19:56:01 +0200):
Em 2010.08.18. 19:37, Rui Paulo escreveu:
On 18 Aug 2010, at 18:18, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
Hi,
I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok
with the remov
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2010-08-18 19:37, Rui Paulo wrote:
>> I really don't know how compatible is the latest icc because no one
>> ever updated the ports version. This is actually a hint that no one
>> really uses this anymore.
>
> I recently installed the po
On 2010-08-18 19:37, Rui Paulo wrote:
> I really don't know how compatible is the latest icc because no one
> ever updated the ports version. This is actually a hint that no one
> really uses this anymore.
I recently installed the port, which has icc 8.1, but it fails to
compile even simple C++ pr
Em 2010.08.18. 19:37, Rui Paulo escreveu:
On 18 Aug 2010, at 18:18, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
Hi,
I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok with the
removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places.
The reason is that
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok with the
>> removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places.
>> The reason is that it doesn't work and no o
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok with the
> removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places.
> The reason is that it doesn't work and no one has volunteered to fix it for
> many years. This seems to i
On 18 Aug 2010, at 18:18, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok with the
>> removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places.
>> The reason is that it doesn't work and no one has
Hi,
I've been chatting with the ICC ex-users and they seem to be ok with the
removal of the ICC bits from share/mk and other places.
The reason is that it doesn't work and no one has volunteered to fix it for
many years. This seems to indicate that the interest in ICC is low.
If there's anyone
28 matches
Mail list logo
