Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (131053)	3/28/2001 2:24:23 PM
From: muzosi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

A statement this absurd I don't think it is much more absurd than you claiming some people are rapists without any proof. Nevertheless, Intel's compiler is known to be a lot more buggy than any commercially available and it doesn't handle some otherwise valid c code correctly. Muzo

To: Elmer who wrote (131053)	3/28/2001 3:57:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Elmer: Tim Wilkins' comments on the ScienceMark Page ( w3.physics.uiuc.edu ) and his postings to both JC's (John Cholewa) and Ace's hardware BBS's are complete proof that Vtune is buggy and error ridden. You can find these so called "Absurd" comments as much more probable than your so called "defense". The source for the Science Mark is in the download and you can try it. Some additional comments on other compilers is in the individual benchmark code sections (like Primordia) can be gotten through JC's main page ( 216.234.177.155 (direct link while his domain is moved)) Otherwise, do not make such an absurd comment yourself. BTW, if you can get Vtune to work, you can post the results to JC's database of Science Mark Results (if you are not ashamed of them that is). Tim Wilkins is not the only one to not get them to work, even Intel has not got them to compile either (at least to runable code per a post by Tim). Pete