IBM: XLC for MacOS X. XLC is a world class C compiler highly tuned for G5!
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
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
Comments
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.
*gracefully steps aside*
Carry on, my geek brothers.
This is great news
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).
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?)
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).
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.
5) Compile a Fortran program, producing an executable file:
[xlf OR xlf90 OR xlf95] source_file.f
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.
Now, where's that Objective xlc compiler?
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?