
Intel offers Parallel STL implementation to GNU libstdc++ - vitaut
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00112.html
======
santaclaus
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

~~~
cmrdporcupine
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.

~~~
gh02t
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.

------
stochastic_monk
And to clang's libc++.

[https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00113.html](https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00113.html)

------
hyperbovine
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?

------
snnn
So they want TBB be part of gcc?

~~~
earenndil
From the footnote:

> But the Parallel STL implementation itself does not require TBB

