PDA

View Full Version : IBM Announces Mac OS X Compilers


MacRumors
Jan 14, 2004, 02:31 PM
IBM has announced the final versions of the XL C, XL C++ (http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS204-005005005), and Fortran (http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/OIAccess?DocURL=http://d03xhttpcl001g.boulder.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS204-004/index.html&InfoType=AN&InfoSubType=CA&InfoDesc=Announcement+Letters&panelurl=&paneltext=) compilers for Mac OS X.

These PowerPC 970 (G5) processor optimized compilers were previously been released in Beta form (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/08/20030828190020.shtml) and showed promising performance advantages.

yoman
Jan 14, 2004, 02:33 PM
How much improved performance is there in real world applications.

Veldek
Jan 14, 2004, 02:37 PM
Great! Now one can only hope that the majority of apps will be compiled using these compilers. I bet Photoshop CS could see a huge boost in performance for example.

vitrector
Jan 14, 2004, 02:38 PM
new compilers for OS X, by IBM, should boost developer confidence...
Supercomputers, V-Tech, X-grid
New x-serves
Downloadable and "music in your pocket" dominance

it is shaping up to be a good year for Apple!!!!

EyeMyke
Jan 14, 2004, 02:39 PM
404 on the C++ link

MikeAtari
Jan 14, 2004, 02:40 PM
Will we have to wait till next year's 10.4 or could Apple release a new build of Panther?

MattMass
Jan 14, 2004, 02:45 PM
This is a great step in the right direction towards more optimized PPC code. GCC is a truely great compiler, but there was never any doubt in my mind that it was not the most optimized. It just stands to reason that if you build specifically for the PPC ISA is should do very well. I'm really excited to start seeing some comparisons.

But, does anyone know if/when these compilers will support Obj-C? Without this functionality I won't be able to use them myself, and I suspect that many developers will be in the same boat.

macrumors12345
Jan 14, 2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by MikeAtari
Will we have to wait till next year's 10.4 or could Apple release a new build of Panther?

Unless the XL compilers can be integrated into the XCode IDE, I seriously doubt that you will see Apple using them anytime soon. Let's be realistic here.

etep
Jan 14, 2004, 02:47 PM
Are the prices stated somewhere? Did't see'em anywhere at least for the Fortran compiler (or am I going blind?).

ITR 81
Jan 14, 2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by MattMass
This is a great step in the right direction towards more optimized PPC code. GCC is a truely great compiler, but there was never any doubt in my mind that it was not the most optimized. It just stands to reason that if you build specifically for the PPC ISA is should do very well. I'm really excited to start seeing some comparisons.

But, does anyone know if/when these compilers will support Obj-C? Without this functionality I won't be able to use them myself, and I suspect that many developers will be in the same boat.

XL supports Objective C.
This has already been covered on slashdot.

In some old beta tests of XL.
It was showing a 30-45% performance increase on the G4.

Either way any app compiled will it will see a big performance increase.

ITR 81
Jan 14, 2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by etep
Are the prices stated somewhere? Did't see'em anywhere at least for the Fortran compiler (or am I going blind?).

It's $499 for a single seat license which is over $500+ cheaper the the complier for AIX.

kherdin
Jan 14, 2004, 03:01 PM
Unless the XL compilers can be integrated into the XCode IDE, I seriously doubt that you will see Apple using them anytime soon. Let's be realistic here.

Actually, the XL compilers integrate very well into Xcode. Since most (all?) command syntax is the same in XL as GCC, all Xcode needs to do is change the commands used, which I believe is configureable. The actual IBM site provides more information on the integration with Xcode.

On another note, wouldn't be great if Apple licenses the compilers from IBM and shipped them for free to developers along with Xcode? I mean sure, Apple would have to pay a hefty fee to IBM for this, but as a result it would get all Mac OS X applications running 1.5-2.5x faster (these numbers are from benchmarks someone took w/ the betas of the compilers, and is not specific to G5 - the speed improvements are significant for the G4 and G3 chips as well).

Think about, if Apple shipped these with Xcode, that would be an equivalent of doubling the processor speed of all Macs, as all apps would (eventually) get compiled with these, and this would equate to a great perception of Macs in general by the public.

ITR 81
Jan 14, 2004, 03:04 PM
I wonder why anyone would vote negative on this??

uberman42
Jan 14, 2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
I wonder why anyone would vote negative on this??
Fat Fingers or ignorance

yamabushi
Jan 14, 2004, 03:13 PM
Great news. Now hopefully they will get used. Integration into Xcode would be awesome.

I would also like to see some performance benchmarks for a recompiled Panther. Who wants to give it a try?

NusuniAdmin
Jan 14, 2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by uberman42
Fat Fingers or ignorance

Or a jealous windows weenee

denjeff
Jan 14, 2004, 03:15 PM
I wonder if the XCode distributed compiling will work if you integrate this compiler... I suppose so. Would boost compilation time as well... :D

MikeAtari
Jan 14, 2004, 03:20 PM
Don't know what I'm talking about, but only Apple can recompile Panther.
I wonder if we could recompile Darwin with this tool.

yamabushi
Jan 14, 2004, 03:27 PM
This article was mentioned in MacBytes. Recompiling Darwin/OSX (http://www.ppcnerds.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=40&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

4 parts to this article so far.

etep
Jan 14, 2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
It's $499 for a single seat license which is over $500+ cheaper the the complier for AIX.
Well, even then that's $499 more than the Intel compiler I'm using at the moment... I was hoping IBM would offer a version for free as well (even if it would come without technical support etc. like the Intel one).

pmd
Jan 14, 2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by denjeff
I wonder if the XCode distributed compiling will work if you integrate this compiler... I suppose so. Would boost compilation time as well... :D
Well, Xcode's distributed compile system is just distcc - http://distcc.samba.org/ - which is designed to work with gcc. However, it can work with other compilers if they treat their command-line options in the same way gcc does.

The IBM page says that their compiler is compatible with gcc's command-line options, so it ought to work.

macshark
Jan 14, 2004, 03:43 PM
I think some of us are getting a bit too excited about this. I have no doubt that IBM's new compilers will increase the SPEC results, etc. for the G5, however, I wouldn't expect huge performance increases for most real world applications. Despite being free, gcc is still a very good compiler and many people have been working on G4/G5 optimizations for gcc for several years.

Stoffel
Jan 14, 2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by etep
Well, even then that's $499 more than the Intel compiler I'm using at the moment... I was hoping IBM would offer a version for free as well (even if it would come without technical support etc. like the Intel one).

Yeah, I was hoping that too. On x86 there is the free personal educational license for the icc/ifc. A free intel compiler for MacOS X would be really cool, especially for the dual g5 as the gcc does not support OpenMP.

kherdin
Jan 14, 2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by yamabushi
Great news. Now hopefully they will get used. Integration into Xcode would be awesome.

I would also like to see some performance benchmarks for a recompiled Panther. Who wants to give it a try?

Well, unless you somehow have access to Panther source code (ie you work at Apple on Mac OS X), you can't really recompile Panther. Panther is not open source - Darwin, the underlying layer is however, but recompiling Darwin, then managing to get the existing Panther closed source stuff to run on top of it is a challenge few would attempt, and even fewer would succeed at. :P

sw1tcher
Jan 14, 2004, 03:56 PM
Wow! I just read Apple's press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/14results.html) saying that they posted a $63 million profit for Q1 2004.

But what I found most surprising was that "Apple shipped 829 thousand Macintosh units during the quarter, up 12 percent from the year-ago quarter, as well as 733 thousand iPod units, up 235 percent from the year-ago quarter." Up 235 percent!!! :eek:

That's f@ckin' amazing!

El Tritoma
Jan 14, 2004, 04:18 PM
I can't imagine Apple would supply the compiler for free, but it sure would be nice to get a big discount on it. I have been using CodeWarrior since it first came out, and though it is still better overall than XCode, since Motorola bought CodeWarrior it seems like they are losing their focus on Macs and going the way of Symantec's compilers for Mac.

ffakr
Jan 14, 2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by macshark
I think some of us are getting a bit too excited about this. I have no doubt that IBM's new compilers will increase the SPEC results, etc. for the G5, however, I wouldn't expect huge performance increases for most real world applications. Despite being free, gcc is still a very good compiler and many people have been working on G4/G5 optimizations for gcc for several years.

Everyone should get REALLY DAMN EXCITED over this. :-)

people I work with have seen ~35% speed increases on their code. IBM has a PDF up of XLC/XLF v. GCC/F77 compiled SPECfp running on a Power4 (the daddy of the G5). The results were, on average, about twice as fast with XL.

If 35% was a typical speed gain on the G5, It'd be the difference between a dual 2GHz and a dual 2.7GHz. That's something to get excited about IMHO.

As for gcc, most people don't think that much about its ability to generate fast code. On x86, Intel's compiler generates much faster code. In fact, gcc still isn't significantly optimised for the P4.
The group in charge of gcc development, as a rule, steers the project with the ultimate goal of producing a well rounded compiler. They don't, by design, provide extensive optimization for any one architecture. Right now, GCC 3.3 is aware of the 970 but it hasn't really been optimized for it yet. gcc 3.3 actually treats the 970 as a different Power processor because it tends to product better code than if it treated it as a G4.

ionas
Jan 14, 2004, 06:49 PM
:rolleyes: i think that it has two sides

ibm's compiler might not be VERY expensive but for medium and small size developers it is just too expensive :mad:

apple for sure can pay for the liscense and the feeling of using mac os x will get even faster (or stay the same fast but will get more enchanted) with this new compiler.

even if there is only a 10% speed increase in real world performance.


though its kind of bad for gcc because apple and ibm for sure put some work in the gcc compiler to make it fit and work for the ppc 970

this work wont be continued like before ,i guess.

and that is bad. :(


someone knows if the compiler is 970 specific and runs under linux as well?

if that is the case we MIGHT see the ibm 970 compiler build into xcode, because then its a general development for ibms low cost linux servers.

if not - well then we can hope for xcode implementation for edu and private use...

better than nothing.

rjstanford
Jan 14, 2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by ionas
ibm's compiler might not be VERY expensive but for medium and small size developers it is just too expensive :mad: I'd have to differ here. And yes, I help run a software shop. $500/seat may be too expensive for hobbyists - who generally don't need anything over gcc. For any commercial shop, pretty much of any size, getting a 35% speed boost in exchange for $500 and 3-4 hours of time to integrate it is a sensational deal.

-Richard

ionas
Jan 14, 2004, 07:06 PM
does the compiler support server/client options (can you compile via tcpip)?

if you work in a 6 ppl software company you ll only have to buy one liscense then?

Fukui
Jan 14, 2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by macrumors12345
Unless the XL compilers can be integrated into the XCode IDE, I seriously doubt that you will see Apple using them anytime soon. Let's be realistic here.
Oh, but they can...:)

Eliaquín
Jan 14, 2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
I wonder why anyone would vote negative on this??

It happened to me once. I didn't read it all and thought that I was going to see negative comments about the subject. I didn't actually know that I was voting.

iooi
Jan 14, 2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by MattMass
But, does anyone know if/when these compilers will support Obj-C? Without this functionality I won't be able to use them myself, and I suspect that many developers will be in the same boat. [/B]

From the website linked in the article:

Technical preview — Selected functions

The following selected functions are offered in this initial release of XL C/C++ Advanced Edition V6.0 for Mac OS X, as a "technical preview." Technical Previews provide insight into IBM plans and directions and information and functions are provided "as-is" and without warranty or condition of any kind. Availability of the selected functions will be announced at a later date.
OpenMP
.
.
.

Objective-C
XL C/C++ Advanced Edition compiler supports Objective-C.

Objective-C is an object-oriented programming language based on standard C and is popular in the Mac OS X programming environment. The Objective-C programming is a basis for writing to Cocoa frameworks.

bousozoku
Jan 14, 2004, 08:52 PM
Considering that Apple has already been philanthropic with their developer tools compared to the $3000+ they cost from NeXT, I doubt they're going to pay IBM and give us the XL compilers for free.

A discount would be appreciated and we could say goodbye to MetroWerks (and their arrogance) forever.

El Tritoma
Jan 14, 2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
A discount would be appreciated and we could say goodbye to MetroWerks (and their arrogance) forever.

I don't remember Metrowerks being arrogant until after Motorola bought them. I used to get phone calls from Metrowerks people regularly asking about how things were going, suggestions, etc. That all stopped when they were bought out. I made some money, not a lot, on their stock that I owned, but I would gladly trade that back to prevent their deterioration.

ffakr
Jan 14, 2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by ionas
:rolleyes: i think that it has two sides
ibm's compiler might not be VERY expensive but for medium and small size developers it is just too expensive :mad:
I think that anyone who can't afford $500 bucks to develop software probably doesn't need anything better than gcc and xCode (which is a very nice overall package).
though its kind of bad for gcc because apple and ibm for sure put some work in the gcc compiler to make it fit and work for the ppc 970.
this work wont be continued like before ,i guess.
Apple and IBM both have reason to continue adding to GCC. They both support open source projects (darwin and linux). Furthermore, Apple will continue to ship GCC with xCode.. you just can't beat the price and it's in Apple's interest to ship free development tools to as many people as possible.

someone knows if the compiler is 970 specific and runs under linux as well?

xlc has support flags for the PPC970 and the G5 specifically. At this point, I think they do pretty similar things but that may change as IBM starts shipping PPC 970 based machines.
There is a linux version of xl which I'm sure will support 970 optimizations since IBM is releasing 970 based Linux blades soon.

if that is the case we MIGHT see the ibm 970 compiler build into xcode, because then its a general development for ibms low cost linux servers.

if not - well then we can hope for xcode implementation for edu and private use...

Built in? Maybe bundled... but xCode won't be released for Linux if that's what your getting at. xCode is a cocoa app. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.
There is an edu discount for xl and xl does integrate with xCode. It is even compatible with gcc headers.

:-)

Photorun
Jan 14, 2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Or a jealous windows weenee

A fat fingered jealous windoze weenie!:D

kherdin
Jan 14, 2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
I think that anyone who can't afford $500 bucks to develop software...

The amount is trivial to pay for any decent commercial projects, as they will generate enough revenue to subsidize the cost, but this hurts freeware developers. Sure you might say if I make freeware/opensource software I might not need a different compiler from gcc, but that is not always true. There a few larger freeware projects that would benefit from the speed the XL compilers would provide, and this in the end benefits Mac OS X users. I think Apple should seriously consider bundling XL with Xcode, as this will make the platform much better when all apps run a good deal faster, and therefore generate sales and revenue.

wfzelle
Jan 15, 2004, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by kherdin
I think Apple should seriously consider bundling XL with Xcode, as this will make the platform much better when all apps run a good deal faster, and therefore generate sales and revenue. [/B]
Do you realize that this would cost Apple millions? The $500 is just for a single license. Having Apple give it away means that IBM will want compensation for all the licenses they won't sell anymore. Do you really really think they will make all that money back?

GregA
Jan 15, 2004, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by macshark
I think some of us are getting a bit too excited about this. I have no doubt that IBM's new compilers will increase the SPEC results, etc. for the G5, however, I wouldn't expect huge performance increases for most real world applications. Despite being free, gcc is still a very good compiler and many people have been working on G4/G5 optimizations for gcc for several years. The other thing is - I bet Apple knows where MacOSX can do with better optimisation. There are certain sections of the OS that are continually used, and areas that are bottlenecks... Apple doesn't just compile code for these sections, they manually optimise the machine code itself.

The 35% boosts are on GCC compiled code. So those hand-optimised bottlenecks etc won't be seeing any improvements. Still, there's got to be huge amounts of the MacOS and applications that will benefit from the overall speed boost.

[edit] err... just to be clear.... no source for my assertions... might not be right.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 15, 2004, 05:10 AM
I'm a developer, so I'll definitely have a use for XLC. I don't have TONS of money (and I don't have a Mac right now), so I won't get it right away. I'm sure, though, that I'll appreciate having it later. Kudos goes out to IBM for developing XLC and reporting the impressive performance gains it produced over GCC.

isgoed
Jan 15, 2004, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by rjstanford

Originally posted by ionas
ibm's compiler might not be VERY expensive but for medium and small size developers it is just too expensive

I'd have to differ here. And yes, I help run a software shop. $500/seat may be too expensive for hobbyists - who generally don't need anything over gcc. For any commercial shop, pretty much of any size, getting a 35% speed boost in exchange for $500 and 3-4 hours of time to integrate it is a sensational deal.

-Richard

I have to agree with ionas here. I am a hobbyist developer and i make shareware games. High framerates are essential and ever since OS9 is gone, it was pretty hard to make this happen. So I want to get my hands on this compiler, but since i don't expect to make more than $500 with my game, how can i afford it?

I think it would be great if there was a $100 to $200 solution, wich i would really consider.

If i am correct the compiler will be out 16 january 2004 (tomorrow). Anyone with a G5 here who wants to run the SPEC benchmark. I am really interested in the new scores.

isgoed
Jan 15, 2004, 06:07 AM
I am thinking that IBM will probably self come with new SPEC scores for the dual G5. What i like to see is comparison between PowerMac and XServe on the GCC3.3 compiler and the IBM compiler.

Now just for fun a list of things that i want to see recompiled


OpenGL
All the other frameworks
photoshop
virtualPC
UT2003 and other First Person Shooters

isgoed
Jan 15, 2004, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by MikeAtari
Will we have to wait till next year's 10.4 or could Apple release a new build of Panther?

why not 10.3.3?

Cochrane
Jan 15, 2004, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by ITR 81
I wonder why anyone would vote negative on this??

I think it is too expensive (but still, I voted positive)

T'hain Esh Kelch
Jan 15, 2004, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by isgoed
I am thinking that IBM will probably self come with new SPEC scores for the dual G5. What i like to see is comparison between PowerMac and XServe on the GCC3.3 compiler and the IBM compiler.

Now just for fun a list of things that i want to see recompiled


OpenGL
All the other frameworks
photoshop
virtualPC
UT2003 and other First Person Shooters

Why not everything? ;)
Originally posted by wfzelle
Do you realize that this would cost Apple millions? The $500 is just for a single license. Having Apple give it away means that IBM will want compensation for all the licenses they won't sell anymore. Do you really really think they will make all that money back?
Xcode Pro with a cost. The only diffrence would be the compiler. I think it would be a smart move from Apple...
Originally posted by isgoed
I'd have to differ here. And yes, I help run a software shop. $500/seat may be too expensive for hobbyists - who generally don't need anything over gcc. For any commercial shop, pretty much of any size, getting a 35% speed boost in exchange for $500 and 3-4 hours of time to integrate it is a sensational deal.

-Richard

I have to agree with ionas here. I am a hobbyist developer and i make shareware games. High framerates are essential and ever since OS9 is gone, it was pretty hard to make this happen. So I want to get my hands on this compiler, but since i don't expect to make more than $500 with my game, how can i afford it?

I think it would be great if there was a $100 to $200 solution, wich i would really consider.

If i am correct the compiler will be out 16 january 2004 (tomorrow). Anyone with a G5 here who wants to run the SPEC benchmark. I am really interested in the new scores.
Well... It would be an investment for the future.. So why not go for it? All your future games would benefit, and your sales would probably be up anyway. You could also recompile your old games, do some re-advertisement and see what happens.

rjstanford
Jan 15, 2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by isgoed
I have to agree with ionas here. I am a hobbyist developer and i make shareware games. High framerates are essential and ever since OS9 is gone, it was pretty hard to make this happen.Well, that has a lot to do with graphics performance as well, but anyway, its still not that much money for good software.

Besides, aren't you (and your customers) already, by definition, people who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for higher quality products (ie: Macs in general)? When the point that Macs cost more than Windows machines is brought up, everyone is so quick to defend that pricing - you get what you pay for and all that. Why should this be any different than the Mac concept itself?

And, if you look at it purely finanancially, either the faster graphics, etc, are worth $500 collectively to your customers (in which case, buy it), or they're not that big a deal (in which case, don't). Either way, nobody's hurting.

-Richard, sticking by his claim

ffakr
Jan 15, 2004, 09:31 AM
$500 is $1 of overhead for a product that only ships 500 copies. $0.10 for a product that ships only 5000 copies. If your shareware is compelling and it ships just 500-1000 [licensed] copies, could you justify a $0.50 - $1.00 increase per copy?
edit: arg, I can't multiply.. fixed.

xlc and xlf for AIX run over $2000 per seat per compiler. I've heard recently that xlf is $2,9xx per seat on AIX! Mac users are already getting a huge discount. This is likely due to the fact that there is a larger market, but it also may have something to do with Apple's involvement. There is also an Edu discount though I've not gotten pricing yet (got the number, didn't call yet).

xCode with gcc is a very nice package. One argument was that shareware game developers need the fastest compilers but don't have the $$. This isn't any different from other platforms. Intel's compiler isn't free either Intel's C++ compiler for Windows is $399 and they have a much larger market.

Other development environments are expensive, but people don't complain about the option of using them if they choose. What does Metrowerks go for these days? Around $500.

We'd all love to have the best possible compiler (or car, or TV, or Computer) but we don't have a perfect redistribution of wealth so some people have to use GCC and some have the ferarri in the garage. :-(
I totally understand that some shareware developers want this but are short on $$. I just want to point out that we shouldn't poo-poo the release of xlc just because we can't all afford it right now.

on a slightly different note, I love the idea of Apple bundleing them and selling an xCode eXtreme or some such thing. :-)

leo
Jan 15, 2004, 09:43 AM
Don't expect big performance improvements with performance-critical commercial software by recompiling it with these new compilers. Most of this stuff (mp3-/divx-codecs, Photoshop, 3D-software, Quartz-drawing and other critical parts of Mac OS X) is optimally hand-tuned already.

In addition, Apple has been working with these compilers for months. Even though they didn't release any XLC-compiled software yet -- at least not officially --, I'm confident they have been using it to learn from the generated binary code.

But this release is still very, very good news for software developers. With good optimizing compilers, you can in many cases achieve almost optimal results without getting your hands dirty (assembler coding, that is). Many projects just don't have the resources for optimization efforts like Apple or Adobe do.

BTW, in my own projects (numerics), XL C++ beta gave me a minus 5% to plus 30% performance increase over gcc.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 15, 2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by leo
Don't expect big performance improvements with performance-critical commercial software by recompiling it with these new compilers. Most of this stuff (mp3-/divx-codecs, Photoshop, 3D-software, Quartz-drawing and other critical parts of Mac OS X) is optimally hand-tuned already.

In addition, Apple has been working with these compilers for months. Even though they didn't release any XLC-compiled software yet -- at least not officially --, I'm confident they have been using it to learn from the generated binary code.

But this release is still very, very good news for software developers. With good optimizing compilers, you can in many cases achieve almost optimal results without getting your hands dirty (assembler coding, that is). Many projects just don't have the resources for optimization efforts like Apple or Adobe do.

BTW, in my own projects (numerics), XL C++ beta gave me a minus 5% to plus 30% performance increase over gcc.

I'm one of those small developers who can't be bothered to hand-optimize code. I'd much rather buy XLC than write PowerPC assembly. (I can do nothing until I get a Mac, though!)

rjstanford
Jan 15, 2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by leo
Don't expect big performance improvements with performance-critical commercial software by recompiling it with these new compilers. Most of this stuff (mp3-/divx-codecs, Photoshop, 3D-software, Quartz-drawing and other critical parts of Mac OS X) is optimally hand-tuned already. You'd be surprised as to just how little code is hand-tuned these days. The loss in maintainability is just not worth it except for the most critical path stuff, and even then it can be a tossup. If you can make a critical section 10% faster and introduce one obscure bug, that's generally a bad deal. Also, a lot of these optimizations tend to make it next to impossible to do a whole-process optimization down the road.

Not that it never happens, just rarely.

-Richard

Spades
Jan 15, 2004, 10:32 AM
The question is, will anything in the license prevent somebody from compiling open source projects with XL and distributing the binaries? I highly doubt it. If IBM is going to restrict the code licenses that can be used with XL, I think open source licenses are the last ones they would restrict. Besides the license, the only constraint would be the time of actually compiling it. Compiling each release of more than a handful of projects is unrealistic. Anybody that buys XL should be able to compile open source projects and distribute them. Any volunteers?

XL compiled Gimp 2.0? Yes, please!

Originally posted by kherdin
The amount is trivial to pay for any decent commercial projects, as they will generate enough revenue to subsidize the cost, but this hurts freeware developers. Sure you might say if I make freeware/opensource software I might not need a different compiler from gcc, but that is not always true. There a few larger freeware projects that would benefit from the speed the XL compilers would provide, and this in the end benefits Mac OS X users. I think Apple should seriously consider bundling XL with Xcode, as this will make the platform much better when all apps run a good deal faster, and therefore generate sales and revenue.

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by kherdin
The amount is trivial to pay for any decent commercial projects, as they will generate enough revenue to subsidize the cost, but this hurts freeware developers. Sure you might say if I make freeware/opensource software I might not need a different compiler from gcc, but that is not always true. There a few larger freeware projects that would benefit from the speed the XL compilers would provide, and this in the end benefits Mac OS X users. I think Apple should seriously consider bundling XL with Xcode, as this will make the platform much better when all apps run a good deal faster, and therefore generate sales and revenue.

In case there is an "experienced hobbiest programmer" that "needs" the environment, I will BUY it for them if only they will port over some old BASIC code to objective C in the process.

Rocketman :)

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

secondshadow
Jan 15, 2004, 02:36 PM
I keep seeing posts about "hand-tuned optimizations." Has anyone actually attempted to hand-tune machine code? As a general rule, a sufficiently good optimizing compiler will generate much better machine code than a person can especially for large code sections. Not only that, but have you ever tried to write any decently size projects in any type of assembly????? We're talking potentially hours for something that in a low-level high-level language (C) would take sufficiently less time and generate similar code as well as probably faster code as long as the optimizing compiler was well produced.

bousozoku
Jan 15, 2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by secondshadow
I keep seeing posts about "hand-tuned optimizations." Has anyone actually attempted to hand-tune machine code? As a general rule, a sufficiently good optimizing compiler will generate much better machine code than a person can especially for large code sections. Not only that, but have you ever tried to write any decently size projects in any type of assembly????? We're talking potentially hours for something that in a low-level high-level language (C) would take sufficiently less time and generate similar code as well as probably faster code as long as the optimizing compiler was well produced.

I had in my 6502 and 68000 days. It's less necessary with good, commercial compilers because they do the work. However, gcc 2.95 was not really that good at it. gcc 3.3x is much better at producing good code. Before Datalight and Watcom showed the world how to do more than peephole optimisations (1980s), it was necessary to unroll loops by hand, etc.

iomar
Jan 15, 2004, 06:19 PM
Wow!

This is great! I have been waiting for this day!

wms121
Jan 21, 2004, 11:44 AM
..and a 64 bit Java (beta?)..Darwin(beta?)..anything else (beta?)

Is Apple going to give away OpenMp 64 if they give away xlC/C++?

Does Steve dream in color..must be rainbow apples and IBM paneling blues?

DoD needs 970's now.

dashiel
Jan 21, 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by leo
Don't expect big performance improvements with performance-critical commercial software by recompiling it with these new compilers. Most of this stuff (mp3-/divx-codecs, Photoshop, 3D-software, Quartz-drawing and other critical parts of Mac OS X) is optimally hand-tuned already.

if macromedia or adobe (to a slightly lesser extent) are hand tuning OS X apps i will eat my hat and then go buy a pc. it's unbelievably how slow they are compared to well written OS X apps.