On May 8, 7:48 pm, Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> mlimber <mlim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm platform shopping.
>
> > I have a high-priority thread (or process) that cannot be interrupted
> > and several ancillary threads (or processes) such as logging and user
> > interaction that could be delayed but not indefinitely. Assuming a
> > multi-core, non-clustered architecture, I understand each HP-UX and
> > Solaris has features to enable this (Solaris has containers to
> > allocate exclusive use of processor resources; HP-UX has its Fair
> > Share scheduler). I see that HP-UX (presumably with its proprietary
> > compilers, not gcc, and only on Itanium) claims significant
> > reliability and speed advantages over Solaris. It's hard to get to
> > apples-to-apples comparison here, but perhaps you have some insights.
>
> > Does anyone have experience with the Sun and HP compilers
> > (particularly C++) vis-a-vis gcc? In particular, I'm concerned about
> > efficiency in a high throughput, non-floating point app on a dedicated
> > box, and about conformance to the C++98 standard. I see that gcc is
> > not recommended on HP-UX for efficiency reasons (cf.
> >http://hpux.cs.utah.edu/hppd/answers/4-4.html);how is it on Solaris?
>
> > Any experience or insights you could share would be appreciated.
>
> SUN's compilers are free on Solaris 10. Are you looking at X86 or SPARC
> or some other architecture? Supposedly, gcc is the "one size fits all"
> compiler for portability between multiple platforms. Since you're not
> porting, why can't you can go with a vendor's compilers which are
> optimized for their hardware.

Thanks for the reply. We could go with either x86, Itanium, or SPARC,
and I expect we will be porting some non-trivial amounts of code that
currently builds with gcc and one other compiler.

Cheers! --M