Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-29 Thread Alexander Leidinger
jason henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Various: > - auto-vectorizer (no benefit for the kernel, since we can't use > FPU/SIMD instructions at any time... yet (interested hackers can > have a look how DragonFly handles it, I can provide the necessary > commit logs)) > > Are you implying Dr

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-28 Thread jason henson
Alexander Leidinger wrote: On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 05:40:44 -0800 Avleen Vig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: It seems to me that building kernel with icc is currently broken, at least in 5-STABLE. Could somebody investigate this?

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-28 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 05:40:44 -0800 Avleen Vig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > It seems to me that building kernel with icc is currently broken, at > > > least in 5-STABLE. Could somebody investigate this? > > > > I don't hav

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread David Schultz
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005, c0ldbyte wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> > >>Without intending to start any compiler holy wars, what benefits does > >>ICC provide over GCC for the end user? > >> > > > >ICC would provide better

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread Attila Nagy
c0ldbyte wrote: PS: There is coders from Intel that do work on some of the code for gcc34. Wow. As far as I know, there are some coders from Nominum who do (or did) work on bind9. And? Bind9 is at least 10 times slower on FreeBSD than Nominum's CNS. :( I didn't get your point. -- Attila Nagy

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread Attila Nagy
c0ldbyte wrote: If any, still produces not all that much of a difference of code between the newer gcc34 and as much performance differance as your going to get isnt going to even be noticeable in the long run. Your just setting your self up for failure with something that isnt really going to give

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread c0ldbyte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, c0ldbyte wrote: On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without intending to start any compiler holy wars, what benefits does ICC provide over GCC for the end user? ICC would provide better low level code (remind: Intel C Compi

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread c0ldbyte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without intending to start any compiler holy wars, what benefits does ICC provide over GCC for the end user? ICC would provide better low level code (remind: Intel C Compiler. It would mean better performance

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread gerarra
> >Without intending to start any compiler holy wars, what benefits does >ICC provide over GCC for the end user? > ICC would provide better low level code (remind: Intel C Compiler. It would mean better performance). rookie ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread Avleen Vig
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > It seems to me that building kernel with icc is currently broken, at > > least in 5-STABLE. Could somebody investigate this? > > I don't have a problem to compile it with a recent -current and a recent > icc (-stable not tes

Re: 5-STABLE kernel build with icc broken

2005-03-27 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:06:29 +0100 Attila Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me that building kernel with icc is currently broken, at > least in 5-STABLE. Could somebody investigate this? I don't have a problem to compile it with a recent -current and a recent icc (-stable not tested)