3 ms·

If Intel freely released their compilers that would rock. Does the money Intel makes selling compilers outweigh the benefits of having hella optimized code on I

If Intel freely released their compilers that would rock. Does the money Intel makes selling compilers outweigh the benefits of having hella optimized code on Intel hardware? The lock in benefits seem to outweigh the few hundred bucks they get selling ICC or whatever. They already have free but-don't-expect-support versions of MKL and such. Edit: freely released

chrisseaton 9y ago
They have released their compilers - you can get them right now. They're just not free or open source.
boris 9y ago
Had a similar question (with a reply from someone from Intel): https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/7gjmgd/intel_offers_parallel_stl_implementation_to_gnu/dqjwyug/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/7gjmgd/intel_offers_pa...
cmrdporcupine 9y ago
I remember finding ICC produced some very fast binaries about 15 years ago last I tried it. But at this point I can't imagine a 3rd major open source compiler for C++ thriving, and I imagine that the specific optimizations in ICC would be difficult to merge into Clang or GCC.
- gh02t 9y ago
  One area they really target is the scientific market, which has more diversity in compilers (see also, Cray, Portland Group etc). icc/ifort/icpc still produce some of the fastest numerical code on Intel hardware and tend to support some of the more exotic and cutting edge features first. They also package it as part of an ecosystem, with MKL, TBB, Advisor, VTune etc that help with high performance code. So it's not just compiler optimizations, it's a whole suite of tools.
- santaclaus 9y ago
  ICC's autovectorization still produces better code than Clang or GCC, at least as of June this year when I last did some major performance tuning on our code.
stock_toaster 9y ago
My wild guess is that intel has support contracts for their compiler, and they could be charging a lot more for those. Additionally, having a billable compiler may also be /to their benefit/ -- consider cases where someone wants a line item on a receipt (think government, military, etc).
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  You can still do all that even if it's open-source!
  - stock_toaster 9y ago
    I certainly agree!
dboreham 9y ago
I thought their compiler techniques were offered to others, and at least some incorporated, long ago (like 15+ years). I think it was the Microsoft compiler, but perhaps also gcc. Memory hazy, but this is from a time when I did some work with at group at Intel on performance so I was paying attention.
jcranmer 9y ago
If you're expecting ICC to be made open-source, I doubt that will ever happen. If you're expecting ICC to cost $0, I suspect that's already in the works (the elsewhere-linked reddit thread has a comment saying they're switching from license-based to support-based).
- dzdt 9y ago
  Yeah, if it was open source you know the first commit would remove the check for AMD hardware that removes optimisation.

chrisseaton 9y ago

They have released their compilers - you can get them right now. They're just not free or open source.

boris 9y ago

Had a similar question (with a reply from someone from Intel): https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/7gjmgd/intel_offers_parallel_stl_implementation_to_gnu/dqjwyug/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/7gjmgd/intel_offers_pa...

cmrdporcupine 9y ago

I remember finding ICC produced some very fast binaries about 15 years ago last I tried it. But at this point I can't imagine a 3rd major open source compiler for C++ thriving, and I imagine that the specific optimizations in ICC would be difficult to merge into Clang or GCC.

gh02t 9y ago
One area they really target is the scientific market, which has more diversity in compilers (see also, Cray, Portland Group etc). icc/ifort/icpc still produce some of the fastest numerical code on Intel hardware and tend to support some of the more exotic and cutting edge features first. They also package it as part of an ecosystem, with MKL, TBB, Advisor, VTune etc that help with high performance code. So it's not just compiler optimizations, it's a whole suite of tools.
santaclaus 9y ago
ICC's autovectorization still produces better code than Clang or GCC, at least as of June this year when I last did some major performance tuning on our code.

stock_toaster 9y ago

My wild guess is that intel has support contracts for their compiler, and they could be charging a lot more for those. Additionally, having a billable compiler may also be /to their benefit/ -- consider cases where someone wants a line item on a receipt (think government, military, etc).

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
You can still do all that even if it's open-source!
- stock_toaster 9y ago
  I certainly agree!

dboreham 9y ago

I thought their compiler techniques were offered to others, and at least some incorporated, long ago (like 15+ years). I think it was the Microsoft compiler, but perhaps also gcc. Memory hazy, but this is from a time when I did some work with at group at Intel on performance so I was paying attention.

jcranmer 9y ago

If you're expecting ICC to be made open-source, I doubt that will ever happen. If you're expecting ICC to cost $0, I suspect that's already in the works (the elsewhere-linked reddit thread has a comment saying they're switching from license-based to support-based).

dzdt 9y ago
Yeah, if it was open source you know the first commit would remove the check for AMD hardware that removes optimisation.