Absoft Announces New Tools For Ibm Xl Compilers For Mac
1) to create something. 2) to sign a check, promissory note, bill of exchange or some other note which guarantees, promises or orders payment of money.
(See:, ) make verb, Associated concepts:, See also:, TO MAKE. To perform or execute; as to make his law, is to perform that law which a man had bound himself to do; that is, to clear himself of an action commenced against him, by his oath, and the oaths of his neighbors. To make default, is to fail to appear in proper time. To make oath, is to swear according to the form prescribed by law. Want to thank TFD for its existence?, add a link to this page, or visit. Link to this page.
Quote: Originally posted by HydraMac: It looks much cheaper than IBM's other compilers then but I don't know if I trust someone with the name gcc to comment on XL compilers Those are my initials too by the way -Jerry C. They are my initials with some OOOE applied.
Quote: Sounds reasonable. Any word on educational pricing? The IBM folks had enough trouble finding out that info, and I wasn't about to kill an entire afternoon plugging for more info. The fellow I was talking to got that number from his supervisor and she was positive that it was correct. If you have at least 20 or so minutes to waste, then you can try to get more info out of IBM. Quote: Originally posted by irfoton: Holy crap!! If the price is really $499 they will put Absoft out of business.
Absoft Announces New Tools For Ibm Xl Compilers For Mac Pro
This will be quite a pleasant surprise if it holds. I also like that it is integrated with Xcode. Does this mean the install process will add color coding for FORTRAN files? I should have made this clearer: $499 is the price IBM quoted me for XL C v6.0 only.
I believe the rep mentioned that both compilers were the same price, but I only got confirmation on the XLC info. We will know for sure about the price this Friday when they officially go on sale. I've a pretty good idea on what the C's stand for Razz, but don't know the g. It's not very difficult to figure out exactly who I am, especially since you have emails from me! No one ever figures out the g even though it's quite common, but let's not turn this thread into a guessing game.
Quote: Originally posted by gcc: quote: Originally posted by irfoton: Holy crap!! If the price is really $499 they will put Absoft out of business. This will be quite a pleasant surprise if it holds.
I also like that it is integrated with Xcode. Does this mean the install process will add color coding for FORTRAN files? I should have made this clearer: $499 is the price IBM quoted me for XL C v6.0 only. I believe the rep mentioned that both compilers were the same price, but I only got confirmation on the XLC info. We will know for sure about the price this Friday when they officially go on sale. Someone on the fortran-dev mailing list had this to say: quote: Any update on the sales price of the XLF for MAC OS X? Last I heard it was $2900, commercial.
I don't see why XLF would be six times the price of XLC, except maybe because Fortran is at least six times better than C. Quote: Originally posted by CanSpice: Someone on the fortran-dev mailing list had this to say: quote: Any update on the sales price of the XLF for MAC OS X?
Last I heard it was $2900, commercial. I don't see why XLF would be six times the price of XLC, except maybe because Fortran is at least six times better than C.
Someone on Macslash said they called IBM, and got these prices: Fortran compiler, one year of tech support and upgrades $999 C/C compiler, one year of tech support, and upgrades $499. Quote: Originally posted by RalphNumbers: Someone on Macslash said they called IBM, and got these prices: Fortran compiler, one year of tech support and upgrades $999 C/C compiler, one year of tech support, and upgrades $499. The $499 I was quoted was for a single license with no support plan. Quote: I don't know if I followed all of the previous threads on this. I know there were some comparisons in the code generated by XLC versus gcc. Was there ever any samples generated to compare code generated by Codewarrior? If there has been, can someone point me to the results Try There was also some discussion in the first XLC thread, which I'm sure is at least 16 pages back by now.
Quote: Originally posted by ggelfond: While this thread is about IBM's compilers, does anyone know what type of work Apple is putting into GCC? I am curious because I read in a recent Dr. Dobbs that GCC generates code that is extremely bloated (compiling the same code with GCC resulted in an executable that was an order of magnitude larger than many other compilers). If this is the case, what kind of performance improvements could be seen if GCC generate smaller code? I believe it was Apple that specifically added an option -Os to reduce the size of the binary as much as possible, but still do optimizations. In my fairly limited testing it generated code slightly worse than -O2, and not really that much smaller.
Maybe there are specific types of code where this really compacts the asm? Quote: Originally posted by esquilax: has XLC advanced along enough that one could expect to compile most open source stuff against it without issues? Or is that asking for it? Because for people that use a lot of open source stuff, buying XLC could be considered a CPU upgrade, in a way. Hell, I'm more interested if XLC still chokes on OpenGL and Carbon libs!! The beta could not compile any code with GL or most common CarbonLib calls, which made it pretty useless for, you know, Mac OSX.
Quote: Originally posted by esquilax: has XLC advanced along enough that one could expect to compile most open source stuff against it without issues? Or is that asking for it? Because for people that use a lot of open source stuff, buying XLC could be considered a CPU upgrade, in a way. Gnu-libtool doesn't support XLC and therefore it is difficult to link most gnu/open source software that relies on that. A complicated workaround for some things is to build with XLC and then link with gcc. You lose some of the advantages of XLC doing that and of course it can hardly be seen as convenient One of the gnu-libtool developers said if someone gave him a XLC license he'd add XLC support to libtool.
I think it will really depend. A lot of large software houses are still using Metrowerks because they have legacy PowerPlant stuff and because (to be frank) it works. However I've heard that Metrowerks G5 optimization isn't as good as Apple's gcc or XLC. But I doubt most of the big players will switch unless they are in a position of doing a reasonable rewrite. They are just worried about new bugs. So adoption will be slow. The Shareware/Freeware guys can't afford it.
So they probably won't use it. Omni I don't know about. Since XLC supposedly supports obj-C they may use it which would be interesting to see what the speedups are like. Apple, I bet, may use it for special components.if. it offers a practical speedup over gcc.