IBM: XLC for MacOS X. XLC is a world class C compiler highly tuned for G5!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This just in... I received this information via e-mail and thought I might pass it along:



IBM just released XLC for MacOS X. XLC is a world class C compiler highly

tuned for Power4 and G5. They also released FORTRAN too.



http://www-3.ibm.com/software/awdtools/ccompilers/



http://www-3.ibm.com/software/awdtools/fortran/



--

Ed
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    You're going to have to expand on this a bit for my sake Ed. I clicked & read the links, but I fail to see the hoopla. I'm a big dummy though. \
  • Reply 2 of 33
    machemmachem Posts: 319member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    You're going to have to expand on this a bit for my sake Ed. I clicked & read the links, but I fail to see the hoopla. I'm a big dummy though. \



    For one thing, it would provide an additional compiler for OS X (besides gcc). Is it free? That would be AGT. I used xlf and xlc back in the day, and for IBM HW, it was very good, but also very obfuscated and difficult to tune. Worth the time, IMHO if you ran a lot of code.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Well, you see, therein lies the problem. I have no idea what you you just said.



    *gracefully steps aside*



    Carry on, my geek brothers.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    markivmarkiv Posts: 180member
    This is good news, depends on how much IBM optimized the compiler for G5, it should kick GCC's butt being optimzed for G5 and built by the same people who made the processor. We would have to see how it compare to Intel compilers.
  • Reply 5 of 33
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    w00t!



    This is great news
  • Reply 6 of 33
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    anyone know what version of Fortran IBM v8.1 is. Is it V90? or?
  • Reply 7 of 33
    machemmachem Posts: 319member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    anyone know what version of Fortran IBM v8.1 is. Is it V90? or?



    It must be F90 or higher. xlf always kept up.



    Actually this is outstanding news, as many of the legacy scientific programs we use (Chemistry and Physics) already provide xlf/xlc Makefiles, though I would assume the file hierarchy would cause problems (Apple is very non-standard w.r.t. BSD and so on; IBM is notoriously strange in its directory hierarchy).
  • Reply 8 of 33
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    anyone know what version of Fortran IBM v8.1 is. Is it V90? or?



    Not to be a code snob or anything, but does anybody still actually code in Fortran, and - uh - why?







    (or is this just a legacy linky-thing?)
  • Reply 9 of 33
    machemmachem Posts: 319member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OverToasty

    Not to be a code snob or anything, but does anybody still actually code in Fortran, and - uh - why?







    (or is this just a legacy linky-thing?)




    manyManyMANY science-types use fortran, especially since F90 has caught up with C/C++ both in portability, communication, OOP and speed. At first, it was severe coders interia, but F90 is actually a very mature and extensible codeset (dynamic memory allocation, for one, which F77 sorely missed).
  • Reply 10 of 33
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OverToasty

    Not to be a code snob or anything, but does anybody still actually code in Fortran, and - uh - why?







    (or is this just a legacy linky-thing?)




    Mostly legacy stuff I wrote 25 years ago and still valid. All I do is number crunching, don't need pretty outputs. Newer programs are available for $1000's but I just need the numbers not nice output. But Fortran with MP compiling would be nice for me.
  • Reply 11 of 33
    markivmarkiv Posts: 180member
    I used Fortran 77, that was a while back. Was pretty cool and easy. Still have to learn C and C++. When I get my G5 I am going to download the compilers by IBM and check them out.
  • Reply 12 of 33
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    The IBM's code generation is significantly better than GCC's, much like Intel's compiler is on x86. I was hoping they would do this since clearly Motorola isn't too interested in updating the CodeWarrior compilers for the 970. There was also some indication a while ago that IBM was working on auto-vectorization capabilities for this compiler which could lead to a significant improvement in how much AltiVec code is used. Good stuff.
  • Reply 13 of 33
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Looks like it generates f77, f90 or f95.



    5) Compile a Fortran program, producing an executable file:

    [xlf OR xlf90 OR xlf95] source_file.f
  • Reply 14 of 33
    machemmachem Posts: 319member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    The IBM's code generation is significantly better than GCC's, much like Intel's compiler is on x86. I was hoping they would do this since clearly Motorola isn't too interested in updating the CodeWarrior compilers for the 970. There was also some indication a while ago that IBM was working on auto-vectorization capabilities for this compiler which could lead to a significant improvement in how much AltiVec code is used. Good stuff.



    This could actually push me over the brink and cause me to get a G5 now instead of replacing my Pismo with a (non-existant) 15" G4 update. If my code could be recompiled to take advantage of the G5 relatively easily, it would be worth being anchored to the desk.
  • Reply 15 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    .
  • Reply 16 of 33
    Fortran is still very powerful language when you are calculating different things. During the 70's and 80's fortran was very used language in scientific world.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    I just downloaded xlc and to my surprise it also works on my Powerbook G4 - the requirements in the README file stated a G5 was needed. xlc on AIX usually produces code that is way better than that generated by gcc-2.95 - this is really great.



    Now, where's that Objective xlc compiler?
  • Reply 18 of 33
    pbpb Posts: 4,221member
    Any chance to see Panther compiled with XLC? Would it make some difference? Also, this ars thread seems to imply that there is some form of autovectorisation in xlc.



    Quote:

    g5

    Generates code specific to Apple Power Mac G5 processors.



    ppc970

    Generates code specific to the IBM PowerPC 970 processor.



    ppcv

    Generates code for generic PowerPC chips with AltiVec vector engine.

    This is the default.



    Why this emphasis on Altivec? Can anyone verify?
  • Reply 19 of 33
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    In the previous post, a demarcation is shown between PPC 970 and Apple G5. The PPC 970 is the G5! What's the story with that?
  • Reply 20 of 33
    markivmarkiv Posts: 180member
    Split personality, G5 and the 970.
Sign In or Register to comment.