SEO

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.

Cheers! --M

In article
<501b21fe-89a5-4d8b-be66-99ca5ae63091@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
mlimber <mlimber@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.
>
> Cheers! --M

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.

--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically by ignored]

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

On Fri, 9 May 2008 07:58:12 -0700 (PDT), mlimber <mlimber@gmail.com>
wrote:


>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.

HP's compiler is only for it's PA or Itanium HP-UX systems. It does
tend to produce better code that gcc, but you should expect to use the
profile based optimizer to realize it.

You might want to go to http://www.hp.com/go/dspp and register with HP's
Developer & Solution Partner Program. The can offer you assistance with
porting your code to HP-UX.

Robert Klute wrote:
> It does tend to produce better code that gcc, but you should expect to use the
> profile based optimizer to realize it.

On Integrity, HP's compilers are so much better, you don't need to use
PBO. Also the compiler offers IPO.

Dennis Handly wrote:
> Robert Klute wrote:
>> It does tend to produce better code that gcc, but you should expect to
>> use the profile based optimizer to realize it.
>
> On Integrity, HP's compilers are so much better, you don't need to use
> PBO. Also the compiler offers IPO.

(Restated to prevent confusion.)
PBO is still useful. But it isn't needed to do much better than gcc.