From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S9gb8-0002Sc-P0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:42:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6135CE0D6D; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6D2E0AF2 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2D51B4035 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:40:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.533, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JATJ5BXGaYp2 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E9CE1B4017 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:40:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S9gZX-0006ST-GG for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:40:43 +0100 Received: from athedsl-357415.home.otenet.gr ([85.72.251.197]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:40:43 +0100 Received: from realnc by athedsl-357415.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:40:43 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Changing compilers Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:40:25 +0200 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: <20120319132643.Horde.NzbZHrtUV7tPZsOT40nUZ2A@webmail.wht.com.au> <4F673E98.4070907@wht.com.au> <4F676BB6.1070804@wht.com.au> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-357415.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120316 Thunderbird/11.0 In-Reply-To: <4F676BB6.1070804@wht.com.au> X-Archives-Salt: 108be60f-a6f0-43ad-b4f9-e2740651c4b6 X-Archives-Hash: 3775d64d8e62a63582cf2c7ef14f9b8f On 19/03/12 19:24, Andrew Lowe wrote: > On 03/20/12 01:17, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> On 19/03/12 16:11, Andrew Lowe wrote: >>> On 03/19/12 17:39, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>>> On 19/03/12 07:26, Andrew Lowe wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> Has anyone played around with the various "better known" compilers on >>> [snip] >>> ... >>> ... >>> [snip] >>>> >>>> You don't need to "change" compilers. You can use whatever one you like >>>> to build your program. The compiler portage uses to build its packages >>>> does not affect your own usage of the others. >>>> >>>> As for the fastest one, I can only speak for Intel CPUs where Intel C++ >>>> gives me the fastest binaries. >>>> >>> [...] Also, I've read somewhere >>> that there are libraries that you have to link against that are specific >>> to the Intel compiler as it does not create libraries that are >>> comparable with the gcc produced ones - is this true or does the >>> compiler now "play well" with the gcc world? >> >> No special libs required. The binaries I get (both C and C++) don't use >> anything extra. I checked both with "ldd" as well as with lsof at >> runtime (in case it dlopens anything). >> [...] > Thanks for that. The library question was the reason I didn't proceed > with playing around with icc ages ago. Your experience tells me it's now > rectified. Just to verify that I'm not mistaken about this, I just compiled a non-trivial project that uses C++ libraries, then uninstalled icc and all its deps (with --depclean), and the binary still ran without issues.