Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
software.intel.com
Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#2[deleted]
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#3From the article it is not clear how the Intel compiler differs from base clang/llvm, except for vague marketing bs (“expected” fp performance?!?)
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#4Anyone actually use Intel compilers
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#5Absolutely sensible move. Time for Microsoft to do the same with MSVC.
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#6Need to develop a custom CRM solution? We provide end-to-end customer relationship management (CRM) software development services. In our ten years on the market, we’ve helped clients convert more leads, engage with customers, and grow their revenue through custom CRM solutions.
Have any questions about our CRM development services, ask our team for more info.
https://steelkiwi.com/expertise/crm-development-company/
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#7Anyone actually use Intel compilers
They are used in High Performance Computing as far as I know. Not systematically though.
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#8Absolutely sensible move. Time for Microsoft to do the same with MSVC.
I disagree. Competition is good.
Don't want to end up with every C/C++ compiler being a clang skin in the same way as (almost) every browser is a chrome skin.
And for what it's worth cl compiles faster for me than even clang-cl. I like having both available though.
Re: Intel C/C++ compilers complete adoption of LLVM
#9I'm not sure I love this. I mean, LLVM is awesome and everthing, but software monocultures are pretty bad. It's not like the situation is dire yet (given that there are also GCC and MSVC), but you can imagine a situation in a couple of years when Microsoft goes "yeah, we're also gonna go with LLVM now" and also GCC starting to fade away. It's a bit concerning.
Also: if icc is going to go with LLVM as a backend, then what is the point of using icc at all? Why not just use clang?