Re: code portability
- From: Al Balmer <albalmer@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:38:07 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:49:08 +0200, jacob navia
<jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom St Denis a écrit :
Eigenvector wrote:
What about the programmers who submit to the archives? That is mainly where
I see massive gcc and imake requirements. In fact I have on occassion
attempted to compile applications - such as gcc using my native Intel or xlC
compilers without luck. Again this isn't a question on how to compile GCC,
but rather is the experience that the OpenSource community tries to conform
to ANSI standards?
GCC is hardly your average OSS project (and Intel C is hardly standard
conforming).
You are just speaking nonsense. As specified here:
http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/dc/tools/compilers/236372.htm?page=4
the intel compiler complies with C99.
It doesn't say that at all. Did you actually read the article?
It is the best compiler for the
intel architecture producing always the best possible code. It is
compatible with gnu's gcc under linux, and with microsoft msvc
under windows.
That compiler is a GREAT piece of software.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: code portability
- From: jacob navia
- Re: code portability
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: code portability
- References:
- code portability
- From: Eigenvector
- Re: code portability
- From: Tom St Denis
- Re: code portability
- From: Eigenvector
- Re: code portability
- From: Tom St Denis
- Re: code portability
- From: jacob navia
- code portability
- Prev by Date: Re: Question on automatic variables and array arguments
- Next by Date: Re: multi-dimensional array and pointers??
- Previous by thread: Re: code portability
- Next by thread: Re: code portability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|