WAS: IVF continues to disappoint (relatively) 
Author Message
 WAS: IVF continues to disappoint (relatively)

Hi all,

I'm happy to report the the latest IVF (9.1.025) download fixes the
problem I was having.  As expected, IVF now produces the fastest
version of my application.  This combined with its OpenMP support means
I am "forced" :-) to buy a (Standard) copy!

If only the Mac version could produce universal binaries (x86 & PPC),
I'd be willing to send some more money Intel's way.

Al Greynolds
Chief Scientist
www.ruda.com



Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:04:43 GMT  
 WAS: IVF continues to disappoint (relatively)
Oops, I forgot to qualify my "fastest" statement.  IVF produces the
fastest version of my application on genuine Intel chips.  Lahey
actually produces faster code on my AMD Turion64 laptop.

It seems to me that Intel has intentionally hamstringed IVF when
producing code for non-Intel chips.  Even though the Turion64 supports
SSE3, there appears to be noway to get IVF to use it.

Quote:

> Hi all,

> I'm happy to report the the latest IVF (9.1.025) download fixes the
> problem I was having.  As expected, IVF now produces the fastest
> version of my application.  This combined with its OpenMP support means
> I am "forced" :-) to buy a (Standard) copy!

> If only the Mac version could produce universal binaries (x86 & PPC),
> I'd be willing to send some more money Intel's way.

> Al Greynolds
> Chief Scientist
> www.ruda.com



Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:53:28 GMT  
 WAS: IVF continues to disappoint (relatively)


Wed, 18 Jun 1902 08:00:00 GMT  
 WAS: IVF continues to disappoint (relatively)

Quote:

> If only the Mac version could produce universal binaries (x86 & PPC),
> I'd be willing to send some more money Intel's way.

You can use Intel fortran on Mac to create universal binaries. You have
to also build with a PowerPC compiler and then use the "lipo" tool to
combine them.

As for your application that is faster with another compiler on the
Athlon, please send an example to Intel Premier Support.  We'd like to
see it.

Steve



Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:24:27 GMT  
 WAS: IVF continues to disappoint (relatively)
I am aware of the "lipo" route.  I should have added  "by itself" to my
desire to have IVF produce universal binaries on the Mac.  Its simpler
(and cheaper) to deal with as few compilers (and their quirks and
multitude of disimilar options) as possibe when creating production
binaries.

On the other hand during development and testing, I have found it
advantageous to routinely pass my application through as many different
compilers/platforms as I can afford.  Tends to guarantee more robust
code.

Quote:


> > If only the Mac version could produce universal binaries (x86 & PPC),
> > I'd be willing to send some more money Intel's way.

> You can use Intel Fortran on Mac to create universal binaries. You have
> to also build with a PowerPC compiler and then use the "lipo" tool to
> combine them.

> As for your application that is faster with another compiler on the
> Athlon, please send an example to Intel Premier Support.  We'd like to
> see it.

> Steve



Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:18:22 GMT  
 
 [ 5 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. IVF continues to disappoint (relatively)

2. Issue from IVF 9.0 to IVF 10.1

3. Reverse Engineering Continued (Am I on the right track)

4. Relatively New

5. Good and (relatively) cheap Ada code browsing software?

6. URGENT: NEED FOR A RELATIVELY CHEAP VHDL COMPILER FOR LINUX OR UNIX

7. word-wise memcmp for relatively unaligned arguments?

8. (Relatively) new IBM COBOL compiler option

9. Help for a relatively inexperienced FORTRAN on a particular problem

10. Difficulty with Relatively Simple IF Structure

11. I am not deaf, but am I mute?

12. sorry, but a disappointing performance report

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software