llvm dev - Jun 2009 - [LLVMdev] Some understanding of LLVM vs gCC vs Intel C++ Compilers

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the response.
>> How does LLVm fit in?
>
> The llvm project provides two open source compilers, llvm-gcc and
> clang.  Clang is considered production quality on the mac for C and
> ObjC.  llvm-gcc on the mac supports c/objc/c++/objc++.  Apple
> productizes these and ships them with the Xcode installation.
>
>> I know that it is a C/C++ Compiler, but how do I use it? Is it
>> Makefile based?
>>
>> Does it replace GCC?
>
> Both llvm-gcc and clang work as drop in replacements for GCC.  They
> take the same command line options etc, and are both quite usable on
> the command line.
Can you provide advice on why Intel C++ compilers vs LLVM-GCC vs just  
normal GCC? Like benefits to one over the others? Pros and Cons, etc,  
etc...

Best,
-Jason

On Jun 14, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle wrote:
>>
>> Both llvm-gcc and clang work as drop in replacements for GCC.  They
>> take the same command line options etc, and are both quite usable on
>> the command line.
>
> Can you provide advice on why Intel C++ compilers vs LLVM-GCC vs just
> normal GCC? Like benefits to one over the others? Pros and Cons, etc,
> etc...
Not really, I'm not very familiar with intel's C++ compiler.  One  
obvious advantage of llvm-gcc is that it's free :)

-Chris

2009/6/14 Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle <mailinglists at
mailnewsrss.com>:
>
> Can you provide advice on why Intel C++ compilers vs LLVM-GCC vs just
> normal GCC? Like benefits to one over the others? Pros and Cons, etc,
> etc...
>
My (possibly faultly) understanding is that intel's has good support
for numerics, presumably through auto-vectorization and such, but only
works for intel's architectures and is only excellent on intel chips.
llvm-gcc is a temporary thing until clang can compile llvm.  GCC is
for when you don't want to use the llvm infrastructure, and just want
something easy to grab from the package manager.

In general, anyways.
~ Scott

On Monday 15 June 2009 01:32, me22 wrote:
> My (possibly faultly) understanding is that intel's has good support
> for numerics, presumably through auto-vectorization and such, but only
Yes, that's true.
> works for intel's architectures and is only excellent on intel chips.
That used to be the case, but not so anymore.  Intel compilers generate
just fine code for AMD processors.  Since AMD doesn't produce their
own compilers, it's likely on par with any other vendor producing an
AMD compiler.

Well, except for Cray, that is.  :)

*ducks*

But hey, we use LLVM to do it!

                                      -Dave