Intel offers Parallel STL implementation to GNU libstdc++ | Hacker News Reader

Intel offers Parallel STL implementation to GNU libstdc++

gcc.gnu.org

89 pointsvitaut16 comments

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

Had a similar question (with a reply from someone from Intel):

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/7gjmgd/intel_offers_pa...

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).

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

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.

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).

You can still do all that even if it's open-source!

I certainly agree!

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.

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.

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.

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

And to clang's libc++.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00113.html

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but this has to have something to do with Intel trying to stay relevant in the age of GPU computing. Yes? No?

So they want TBB be part of gcc?

From the footnote:

> But the Parallel STL implementation itself does not require TBB

Reply on news.ycombinator.com